Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden Equals Treason

06/28/2012

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/25-06-2012/121468-Delaware_Attorney_General_Beau_Biden-0/

 

By Mark S. McGrew

 Part 1 

Author’s note: If any of the links in this article do not work, please copy the phrase in (parenthesis) and paste into the www.google.com search window.

The Attorney General of the State of Delaware, Beau Biden has a very good reason to want to take away the powers of arrest from the sheriffs in Delaware: FEAR.

Absolute fear is the motivation. The Attorney General and a host of Delaware politicians and government employees are terrified of one lone sheriff.

Sheriff Jeffrey Christopher believes that sheriffs do have the power to arrest and always have had that power. Here, you will learn that he is correct.

New Castle County Sheriff Trinidad Navarro is a liar, a coward and a traitor.

Kent County Sheriff Norman Wood is a liar, a coward and a traitor.

Georgetown Delaware Chief of Police William Topping is a liar, a coward and a traitor.

Any other government employees that say a sheriff has no arrest powers or wants to eliminate those powers is a liar, a coward and a traitor.

They are playing a treasonous game to try to eliminate the arrest powers of a sheriff because, right now, today or tomorrow morning, any Delaware Sheriff has grounds to arrest the Attorney General and some of the legislators of Delaware for Fraud, Sedition and Treason, because of Biden’s and your legislators attempt to circumvent the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Delaware and lying about it. That is deadly business and they know it. That is why they must get rid of the sheriffs.

Sheriffs are employed by the voters, citizens of their county, charged with the duty to support and defend the Constitutions of America and the State of Delaware. They can and should arrest anyone, government employee or otherwise, who attempts to violate those constitutions.

Your sheriff can arrest an FBI agent, DEA agent, IRS agent, any State Trooper, the Georgetown Chief of Police or any government employee if he is breaking the law in your county. Go to google.com and type in …sheriffs resist the federal government. All over the country, sheriffs are telling federal agents to pack sand and haul ass.

This explains the power of your sheriff: (Oregon Sheriff Gil Gilbertson Gives Federal Agents The Boot: Feds Have No Jurisdiction!)

This is an excellent 8 minute video on (the movement of Sheriffs to take back America.) That is what Biden and his co-conspirators are afraid of.

The City police wouldn’t even dream of risking their career and paycheck by arresting a corrupt mayor. A State trooper is too much of a coward to put his career on the line by trying to arrest a corrupt politician or government worker. His supervisor doesn’t want to lose his job and the head bosses of the Delaware State Police will not risk losing their cushy jobs, their pensions and their power. ALL law enforcement officers in the State of Delaware are sufficiently bribed and cowed to do what they are told, “Or else.”

Who’s going to fire a sheriff for doing the job that cops don’t want to do? The only people who can fire him are the citizens of his county. The only reason they are going to fire him is because he abuses them or refuses to protect them from the criminals.

Truthfully, if Sheriff Jeffrey Christopher went on a sweep and arrested every crooked politician with his hand in the cookie jar, Beau Biden would have to close his windows to not hear the cheering coming from the citizens down in Sussex County.

Nobody likes crooked government employees. The Sheriff is the only law enforcement officer who can actually arrest those thieves and not worry about losing his job, benefits and pensions, like very other person carrying a badge and a gun in the State.

Of course a crooked government has to get a crooked Attorney General to wipe out the Sheriffs. Sheriffs are the only effective enemy a crooked politician has.

2,000 years ago, a man respected by 70% of Americans, made these statements: “Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers. Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

For all the church leaders reading this and want to tell their congregation that Jesus never said that, look it up. All I will tell you is, you can find it in the book of Luke.

For all the lawyers who will refuse to believe it, you’re no different than hundreds of lawyers I have told that too and refused to confirm it……just like Jesus said you wouldn’t.

Here, I will prove to you that nothing has changed in 2,000 years.

The Sheriff of Sussex County and the other two Sheriffs have the legal and constitutional Right to convene a Common Law Grand Jury, composed of Sussex county citizens at 9am, totally apart from the State’s oversight. It is NONE of the State’s business.    

 

Part 2

Once the Grand Jury begins to hear the evidence, the Sheriff can go outside and deputize 200 citizens. They can drive to Wilmington and when they arrive, make a call to the Grand Jury and ask if an indictment has been given against Biden. If the answer is “Yes”, the Sheriff can then proceed to the location of Biden and arrest him and transport him to the Sussex County jail and incarcerate him until trial. Anybody, including State Police who interfere, will do so at their own risk.

Then the Sheriff can convene a Common Law trial with a citizen jury, without a judge or prosecutor allowed. If that trial finds Biden guilty of Sedition or Treason, the Sheriff can apply whatever penalty that jury determines, up to, hanging by the neck until dead, one Beau Biden.

It is all legal and completely in standing with the United States Constitution and the Delaware Constitution. We have over 300 years of precedence in Delaware to support that action against corrupt government employees.

Sound crazy? Then you need to call US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and have him committed.

He ruled in the case of United States vs. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 at 48 (1992):

“Rooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history, Hannah v. Larche, 363 US 420, 490 (1960) with J. Frankfurter concurring in result, the Grand Jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the three branches described in the first three Articles. It is a constitutional fixture in its own right.”

“In fact, the whole theory of it’s foundation is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between Government and the people. Although the Grand Jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, it’s institutional relationship with the Judicial branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm’s length. Judges direct involvement in the Grand Jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the Grand Jurors together and administering their oath of office”.

And in an article in the Creighton Law Review, Volume 33. number 4, 1999-2000, Roger Roots, Juris Doctorate wrote:

“In addition to its traditional role of screening criminal cases for prosecution, common law grand juries had the power to exclude prosecutors from their presence at any time and to investigate public officials without government influence. These fundamental powers allowed grand juries to serve a vital function of oversight upon the government. The function of a grand jury to ferret out government corruption was the primary purpose of the grand jury system in ages past.”

After Biden’s body is cut down, the Sheriff can lead his deputies to arrest every legislator who supported Biden’s Treasonous act and prosecute them the same way and hang every one of them. And the “State” has nothing to say about it. The State is the citizen’s of Delaware. Politicians, judges, Attorney General and his deputy attorneys are nothing more than part time employees of the citizens.

And they make a heck of a lot of money lying to you.

852 of your Delaware government employees make over $100,000 a year. Look at(salaries of Delaware state employees) .

Compare their salary to your at the (Delaware per capita personal income.)

The State of Delaware, like most nations on Earth, recognizes the citizen’s Right to make arrests against law breakers. Citizen’s arrest is as old as cave men. Figure it out: What came first? People or lawyers? People or cops? People or judges? It is not rocket science. It is just that you have been lied to for so long that you’ve been trained to believe a lie.

The 1987 Delaware Attorney General’s office issued an opinion written by State prosecutor Eugene Hall and Deputy Attorney General Peggy Hanrahan, which the Attorney General, Charles B. Oberly III, signed off on, giving his approval, regarding the powers of arrest that security guards may have. You can see it here: (Attorney General Oberly citizens arrest in Delaware)  On that site, scroll down to see the Attorney General’s answer to the letter.

In that opinion, the Delaware Attorney General’s office said, “We conclude: 1. Private security guards only have the same common law power of arrests as private citizens, 2) security guards can detain individuals pursuant to 11 Del. C 840, 3) some hot pursuit may be permissible under the common law but it is not advisable and 4) their [private security guards] investigation and interrogations are limited by 24 Del. C. 1301. There is no statute in Delaware regulating the arrest powers of private citizens.”

In 1964 in the case of State vs. Hodgson, Del. Super, 200 A.2d. 567, the court stated: “at common law a private citizen could make an arrest without a warrant for an offense committed in his presence which amounted to a breach of a peace…or which threatened a breach of a peace”

 

Part 3

Attorney General Oberly further stated, “As a private citizen, the security guard can make arrests for breaches of the peace or threats of such breaches. A breach of the peace is defined as, a public offense done by violence, or one causing or likely to cause an immediate disturbance of public order. The necessity for prompt on the spot action in suppressing and preventing disturbances of the public peace justifies arrest without warrant in cases involving a breach of the peace.”

“Examples of breach of the peace include, 1) an affray or an assault, 2) disorderly conduct. 3) a refusal to depart premises and 4) swearing at another. At common law the arrest power included the power to detain the individual.

A sheriff is classified as a “Conservator of the Peace”, under Article 15 of the Delaware Constitution, written in 1831, it says:

ARTICLE XV. MISCELLANEOUS §l. Conservators of the peace.

Section l. The Chancellor, Judges and Attorney General shall be conservators of the peace throughout the State; and the Sheriffs shall be conservators of the peace within the counties respectively in which they reside.

In the recent opinion from the Attorney General’s office, which was NOT signed by and approved by Biden, probably because he does know it is treason, we see State Solicitor

Mr. Lawrence W. Lewis stating, “The Constitution does not define the powers of a “conservator” of the peace,” and dictionary definitions offer little guidance”.

Well Larry, here’s what they must have left out at your law school: The constitution is not a dictionary. The constitution was written by men who wrongly assumed that lawyers in the future would #1. Know how to read, and #2. Know how to look up big words in a dictionary. And #3. Not be getting their legal instruction from watching COPS and CSI.

He says the “conservator of the peace has never beendefined” That” dictionaries offer little guidance. See Black’s Law Dictionary (rev. 4thed. 1968 at 368″

Lawrence W. Lewis is a blatant liar. By association, so is Beau Biden. I did look it up in Black’s, Larry.

Jesus was referring to the “Beau and Larry Show” when he said, “Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not

By the way, Lawrence Lewis gets paid $119,000 a year to lie to you. in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.”

Here is the text from Black’s Law dictionary that Beau and Larry are hindering you from seeing. Notice the 3rd sentence says: “Their duties were to prevent and arrest for breaches of the peace,”

Here we go to Black’s Law Dictionary (rev. 4th ed. 1968 at 368, the same one that Larry could not find a definition in: CONSERVATORS OF THE PEACE. Officers authorized to preserve and maintain the public peace. In England, these officers were locally elected by the people until the reign of Edward III, when their appointment was vested in the king. Their duties were to prevent and arrest for breaches of the peace, but they had no power to arraign and try the offender until about 1360, when this authority was given to them by act of parliament, and “then they acquired the more honorable appellation of justices of the peace.” 1 Bl. Comm. 351.

Even after this time, however, many public officers were styled “conservators of the peace,” not as a distinct office but by virtue of the duties and authorities pertaining to their offices. In this sense the term may include the king himself, the lord chancellor, justices of the king’s bench, master of the rolls, coroners, sheriffs, constables, etc. 1 Bl. Comm. 350. See Smith v. Abbott, 17 N.J.L. 358. In Texas, the constitution provides that county judges shall be conservators of the peace. Const. Tex. Art. 4, § 15; Jones v. State, Tex. Cr. App. 65 S.W. 92. The Constitution of Delaware (1831) provides that: “The members of the senate and house of representatives. the chancellor, the judges, and the attorney-general shall, by virtue of their offices, be conservators of the peace throughout the stateand the treasurer, secretary, and pro-notaries, registers, recorders, sheriffsand coroners, shallby virtue of their offices, be conservators thereof within the counties respectively in which they reside. [Black’s Law Dictionary (rev’d. 4th ed.) (1968), p. 378 (emphasis added).]

And, THAT, is the key of knowledge that Lawrence W. Lewis and Joseph R. Biden, III have intentionally kept you and hindered you from learning.

Part Two will be coming soon. Thank you! In the meantime, go to www.YouTube.com and type in (Constitutional Sheriffs) and visit: the (Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association) at http://www.cspoa.org/

Mark S. McGrew may be reached at McGrewMX@aol.com  More of his articles can be found at www.MarkSMcGrew.com


New World Order Blueprint Leaked

06/26/2012

http://www.pakalertpress.com/2012/06/25/new-world-order-blueprint-leaked/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+pakalert+%28Pak+Alert+Press%29

By Rudy Avizius
OpedNews

A leaked copy of the investment chapter for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was made public. This copy was analyzed by Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch and has been verified as authentic.   This agreement has been negotiated IN SECRET for 2-1/2 years and no information has ever been released until this leak. So why have the details of this negotiation been so secret? This agreement has been framed as a “free trade” agreement and yet out of 26 chapters only two have anything to do with trade. The other 24 chapters grant new corporate privileges and rights, while limiting governments and protective regulations.

If implemented, this agreement will hard code corporate dominance over sovereign governments into international law that will supercede any federal, state, or local laws of any member country. This TPP agreement   alone should set alarm bells ringing, but if one steps back and looks at the larger picture, the future ramifications look even more ominous. After completing this reading, see what your conclusions are.

This video is a must see for anyone who wishes to more fully understand the implications of this secretly negotiated agreement. This article will also show how if this agreement is considered in the context of other recently passed legislation and developments, and the “dots are connected”, the results would be total corporate global governance with an accompanying police state. In this new system the role of elected   governments would be to serve as subservient agents for the transnational corporations, while the armies, police, and courts would serve the interests of these transnational corporations. The   status of the member states would be locked-in,   similar to countries once they are inside the Eurozone.

The TPP is being negotiated by some of the same cast of characters that brought us NAFTA, CAFTA and other so called free trade agreements. Some of the provisions in this document include the establishment of a parallel system of justice to be administered by 3 attorneys with no conflict of interest limitations. This 3 attorney tribunal could order sovereign governments to use taxpayer money to pay these transnational corporations for any environmental or regulatory costs that these corporations expended to meet local standards. Many existing laws would need to be rewritten and no new regulatory laws could be passed.

Governments that tried to pass regulations such as limits on the financial industry using risky bets such as derivatives would have the burden of proof to defend such regulations in a court system controlled by the corporations. The taxpayers would pay should a corporation prevail in one of these “private courts”. In fact over $350 million of taxpayer money has already been paid out to corporations under the NAFTA style deals, because of zoning laws, toxic bans, timber rules and other regulations. This TPP agreement is like NAFTA on steroids. This corporate tribunal bears a resemblance to the private US Supreme Court approved   binding arbitration that corporations use to severely limit an individual’s or a group’s right to sue for damages. With binding arbitration we essentially have a “ private corporate court system ” outside of any government judicial system where the corporations choose the arbitrators and pay for their services. This creates an apparent conflict of interest because   the arbitrators know that if they do not rule favorably to the corporations in the majority of cases, they will not be hired back.

The kangaroo courts setup by this TPP agreement will have binding corporate guarantees with both trade and cash sanctions. These cash sanctions would effectively transfer taxpayer money to transnational corporate coffers.   Can you imagine the excesses we will see in the financial industry as they challenge regulations within their own private court system forcing governments to pay or eliminate them?

The result of these corporate tribunals will be to setup a race to the bottom, where if one country chooses not to regulate something, then the corporations would be able to sue the other nations inside of the TPP to have taxpayers cover their losses for any such regulations. These other countries would be vulnerable to corporate led lawsuits to be decided in the corporate tribunals.

So how could such an extreme agreement that literally gives corporations everything they could possibly want have been negotiated with little or no resistance? The answer is that the ONLY way this agreement could ever pass is if everything is done in secret and the details never see the light of day. Lori Wallach , the director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch recently said:

“These agreements are a little bit like Dracula. You drag them in the sunshine, and they do not fare well. But all of us, and also across all of the countries involved, there are citizen movements that are basically saying that this is not in our name. We don’t need global enforceable corporate rights. We need more democracy. We need more accountability.”

These talks have been so secret that Senator Ron Wyden, chairman of the Trade Committee in the Senate which has jurisdiction   over trade agreements has been denied any access to information on the negotiations for over 2-1/2 years. This is a man who is on the Intelligence Committee and has access to nuclear secrets, yet he cannot see this TPP agreement? On the Democratic side, Senator Wyden has introduced legislation to force the Obama administration to make the details of these secret negotiations available to the Senate Committee.

On the Republican side, Representative Darryl Issa has also questioned the Obama administration’s extreme levels of secrecy on this agreement. This is not a liberal cause, this is not a conservative cause, this is a common cause. It is vital that the public be aware of this TPP agreement because BOTH of the 2012 presidential candidates are supporting this agreement.    Since TPP was negotiated under the watch of the Obama administration, and Mitt Romney has indicated that he wants to quickly complete negotiations of this bill, the results of the next election will be irrelevant to the future status of this bill.

With the corporate takeover of sovereign governments, we see the very essence of a global fascist system. When most people think of fascism, they think of Hitler brown shirts marching through the streets, however, that is not the real definition of fascism. Fascism was defined by President Franklin Roosevelt:

“The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it comes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism – ownership of government by an individual, by a group”

Polls show that most Americans from both major political party believe that money exerts far too much influence on public officials, effectively making these elected officials the “hired servants” of the wealthy elites. Both the Tea Party and the Occupy Movement believe that there is too much influence of money on our legislators. Our representatives are essentially the puppets while the corporate elites are the puppeteers. What this   TPP agreement does is to take this puppet metaphor to the international level. Our elections have been reduced to the people choosing who will be the “hired servants” of the power elites from a list preapproved by these same elites.

This TPP agreement is nothing less than a power grab by the largest corporations on the planet to establish a legal framework for global corporate government making all sovereign governments subject to international law enforced by corporations. Passage of this bill would essentially be corporate coup against all member states.  

So while this TPP agreement should frighten anyone who is still breathing, the threat does not end as the corporations make their ultimate grab for power. Here are some of the other forces that are potentially focusing the power of the corporate state.

National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA)

With the passage of the NDAA, our legislators overrode constitutional protections so that Americans who are “suspected” of providing “material support” to a terrorist organization can be detained indefinitely on American soil, without access to legal counsel, and without any charges being filed. Think about this for a minute, you do not even have to be charged with a crime and you can be locked up indefinitely? What exactly does “material support” mean? Exactly what is a terrorist? Some states have actually declared that people who secretly video record animal mistreatment as “terrorists”, even if no property damage was done. If nonviolent protests can be declared as terrorist acts, it does not take a great leap of the imagination to see how NDAA might be applied. Imagine if the government used NDAA legislation against journalists or whistleblowers such as Julius Assange ,   Russ Tice , or even Daniel Elsberg ? How will we ever know what is happening in a corporate state if the corporations are successful in indefinitely detaining those who would shed light on their activities?

This NDAA is another example of dangerous legislation being passed in darkness. This bill was signed by Obama on December 31, 2011, during the Christmas break when the media attention would be minimal. In an effort to divide the opposition to the indefinite detention of Americans, Obama promised that his administration would never use the provisions. The questions most people should be asking is: “what is to prevent any future president or even Obama himself from using indefinite detention, and if there is no need for concern over this, why was it necessary to make that signing statement?” Progressive and conservative groups such the ACLU, Gun Owners Foundation, Tea Party Movement, Institute of the Constitution, US Justice Foundation, Tenth Amendment Center, Occupy Wall St, and many other   groups are joining forces to fight this legislation. On social media, resistance in the form of a Facebook group called “ Recall Every Congressman Who Voted for NDAA ” has been formed.   Now, in the context of the TPP, think of how useful this NDAA law could be to a global corporate government in silencing its critics.

Citizens United Ruling

Americans have long had a sneaking suspicion that there was a “hidden hand” directing our government in Washington and the states, and they were right. The “hidden hand” was actually the corporations, unions, and other self-serving special interests that contribute literally $billions to our politicians in order to influence legislation that will favor them. This has happened even with limits that had been placed on these groups that prevented them from directly contributing to campaigns.   Thursday January 21 2010, will go down in history as a dark day. This is the day that a divided Supreme Court, in the Citizens United v. FEC ruling, removed all limits on corporate political campaign spending.

If you thought our politicians were corrupt and beholden to corporations before, things are about to get a LOT WORSE now that all limits have been removed. Justices Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy swept aside decades of legislative restrictions on the money from corporations in political campaigns and ruled that companies can use corporate funds to support or oppose candidates. This ruling will certainly take its place in history alongside other shameful rulings such as Dred Scott v. Sandford, and Plessy v. Ferguson. These 5 justices opened the floodgates of unlimited funds to influence elections. The strangle hold the banks have over the nation’s wealth will now be amplified by this Supreme Court ruling now that all limits on campaign financing by corporations have been removed.

This black day will go rightly go down in history where the Supreme Court officially validated the takeover of the government by the corporations. The 2012 primary election cycle has already seen where approximately 4 dozen people have contributed massively to the super PACS and decided the outcome of the elections. This type of money influence will cut both ways regardless of which political party you support. One donor has stated that he is willing to spend $100 million in this election cycle. This one single donor “donated” the same amount as 2 million families sending a check for $50. This type of funding by large donors undermines the very foundation of our government and creates an environment conducive to corruption. Now in the context of the TPP, think of the impact that huge global corporations will have on governments with their ability to spend unlimited money anonymously.

Corporate domination of media

Media ownership has now become so concentrated that six corporations effectively control US media today. These companies are Time Warner, Walt Disney, Viacom, Murdoch’s News Corp, CBS Corporation, and NBC Universal.   With this type of concentration, it becomes very difficult to find diversified news in order to form independent opinions. One aspect of this concentration is the increasing number of negative political ads, many of which have no accountability as to their factual accuracy. This will end badly if we do not stop the media from undermining the foundations of our election system. This concentration of media ownership allows billionaires and corporations to ensure that the politicians who will work to pass self serving legislation favoring these wealthy elites are elected to office.

One place where the corporate media has not met with great success in controlling is the independent media on the Internet. Attempts have been made to control access to it, to create “ toll system ” ,   as well as extreme copyright rules. We have seen a veritable alphabet soup of acts designed to enhance corporate profits and limit the flow of information. Some examples include PIPA , SOPA ,   CISPA , and it seems as soon as they are knocked down due to public resistance, another threat arises. For now, the Internet has remained free and a diverse source of information, but vigilance must be maintained.   Now, think of the effect that the loss of an open Internet and   the increasingly concentrated media ownership will have on the electorate when combined with the unlimited funding that the Citizens United ruling allows, as well as the power that the transnational corporations could gain under TPP.

Increasing Use of Drones for Domestic Surveillance

The use of drones for domestic surveillance is becoming more and more common. The FAA has approved   drones for use over the United States and projects that 30,000 drones will be over our skies by 2020. The EPA is actually using drones to monitor cattle ranchers in Iowa, police and universities are using them, and cities are using drones to keep an “eye on things”.   New much smaller drones the size of birds and insects are now in development.   These smaller drones will be cheaper to produce and deploy which will likely raise the 30,000 estimate significantly and will be much harder to detect. Under a government subservient to the corporations, these drones would effectively be controlled and “regulated” by the corporations. Can you imagine the misuse of this technology to violate any privacy we may have left and to conduct clandestine surveillance?

Militarization of  Police Forces

The militarization of our police forces is proceeding rapidly. After 9-11, the Department of Homeland Security gave generous grants to police forces across the nation. Some of the purchases   included riot gear , armored personnel carriers , and even acoustic weapons for small towns with hardly any violent crime. A nexus has formed between vendors of military equipment and the nation’s police forces. There are certainly consequences to this militarization of police forces. Once a police officer is deployed into a situation with full riot gear and military training, the chances of violence increases significantly even when the protests remain peaceful. There is significant evidence of this during the Occupy demonstrations.

The roles of police and military are totally different. The police are trained to protect lives, the military is trained to take lives. Consider how these same military trained riot police would be used when they are under the effective control of the transnational corporations and how they would be utilized to silence their critics.   

The privatization of prisons is expanding rapidly. In most societies prisons are run by the state where the incentive is to have fewer prisoners with a lower recidivism rate. In a private system the perverse incentive is to maximize the number of prisoners, and raise the recidivism rate   in order to maximize profits. This results in higher numbers of prisoners, broken families, poor healthcare for inmates, and few resources spent to prepare inmates to reenter society. This has contributed to the shame of the US having largest prison population on the planet whether measured in absolute numbers or on a per capita basis, with most prisoners serving time for non-violent crimes. The private for profit prison industry is growing and has actually influenced immigration legislation in Arizona in order to gain more inmates and raise profits. Think of the impact that private prisons, private policing, private contractors providing soldiers for hire, all with loyalty to $$$ instead of their country. We will quickly devolve into a fascist controlled state. This aspect of corporate control should be one of the most frightening to everyone who holds freedom and democracy dear.

Lack of Prosecution for Financial Fraud
If a criminal gets away with committing a crime, there is a strong likelihood that they will commit it again. The lack of prosecution for the major financial fraud that brought about the 2008 economic collapse almost guarantees that it will happen again. Justice Department officials have stated that these are difficult and complex cases. However, during the Savings & Loan crisis, there were thousands of successful felony convictions , despite the fact that it was 1/70 the size of the 2008 crisis. In fact when the 50 Attorneys General were close to starting their own prosecutions due to the lack of any federal action, the Obama administration stepped in and negotiated its own agreement.

To paraphrase David Petrovich , the Executive Director for Society For Preservation of Continued Homeownership:

“This agreement granted immunity to the big banks for the criminal robosigning   where they forged documents and fraudulently tried to present them in courts across the country. This was essentially another bailout of the banks only this time the bailout was not in the form of money, but rather where changes were made in the law to retroactively transform banks’ illegal behavior into legal behavior. (Watch how this concept of “retroactive” immunity comes up again.) Think about what would happen if you or I forged notarized signatures and tried to pass them off in court. We certainly would serve prison time. Yet, these huge banks were let off the hook even after forging tens of thousands of these signatures and illegally foreclosing on peoples’ homes.”

We also recently had the spectacle of the Senate Banking Committee “ questioning ” one of its largest donors . While wearing presidential seal cuff links, presumably to show his powerful connections, JP Morgan chair Jamie Dimon, easily handled all the softball questions asked of him.   Dimon lost over $3 billion (and growing) on risky derivative bets and yet these same senators actually had the audacity to ask him for input and advice on regulating his bank. Think about the implications of total immunity from prosecution for financial crimes in an environment where the TPP has been approved and global corporations are the effective government.

Lack of Protection for Whistleblowers
The increasing prosecution and harassment of whistleblowers has a chilling effect on government transparency . The government often prosecutes the whistleblower rather than the crime that the whistleblower reveals. The Obama campaign in 2008 promised to protect whistle blowers, but instead he has been waging a relentless war against them. Bradley Manning was declared guilty by Obama BEFORE he was even charged with any crime, yet the shooting of the journalists by the US helicopter crew and their callous statements during the shooting was ignored.   When William Binney blew the whistle on the NSA’s huge surveillance program, the FBI raided his home in an effort to quiet and intimidate him. Corporations as well as government also often retaliate against whistle blowers.   In a corporate state, how would the citizens know about the activities of the corporations if there is no protection for whistleblowers?

Corporate Spying on Americans
The information William Binney made public dramatized the huge scale of the (at that time ) illegal surveillance that was being done on Americans. It also included the fact that AT&T as well as other communication companies were deeply involved in this illegal spying on US citizens. Later, as lawsuits against the corporations started to look like they would be successful, the Obama administration claimed state secrets to kill the lawsuits.   Since the telecommunications industry is another VERY large “contributor” to political loyalists, Congress showed its gratitude   by passing legislation to grant the telecommunication companies retroactive immunity. (This concept retroactive immunity comes up again.)   The questions that should come to mind are: “if no crime was committed, why were the corporations granted retroactive immunity, or if crimes were committed, why were these corporations granted retroactive immunity?” Think of the implications of this in a corporate state, with the increasing use of smaller and smaller drones in an environment that allows corporations to legally spy on you. Then also consider this concept of governments granting retroactive immunity for criminal actions in order to please their major corporate donors. How will the transnational corporations   use these “tools” to maximize their profits or to silence opposition?

Summary

What we see is a confluence of forces that has the potential to solidify a shift towards corporate fascism and encase it in international law. Governments will merely be the tools of the corporations to provide a degree of separation from the inevitable police state that will accompany this corporate global governance. Sovereign governments even with all their failings still have at least some concern for the general welfare of their citizens. Corporations by their very nature have only one purpose and that is to generate profits. If an individual whose sole purpose was to blindly enhance profits, without any regard to the standards of what is wrong and what is right in society, would likely be considered a sociopath by mental health experts.

If the TPP were to be enshrined into international law, these same sociopath corporations would now lord over sovereign governments, indifferent to criminal law, and beyond the control of nation-states. They would have the ability to utilize the militaries of some states to wage war on other “less complaint” states.

Doug Casey of Casey Research recently wrote :

“It’s most unfortunate, but the US and its allies will turn into authoritarian police states. Even more than they are today. Much more, actually. They’ll all be perfectly fascist — private ownership of both consumer goods and the means of production topped by state control of both. Fascism operates free of underlying principles or philosophy; it’s totally the whim of the people in control, and they’ll prove ever more ruthless. ”

There are those who would say that it is unpatriotic to be against corporations, however should corporations be in the business of governing?   An open public debate on the future role of corporations is needed.

It is vital that the details of this TPP agreement become widely known and circulated. Once it sees the light of day, it will be defeated because people will oppose it. Sorry, corporations really are NOT people, they are merely state created entities.

What Can You Do?
Get money out of politics

Until we get money out of politics, corporate control of our government will continue and   because of the Citizens United ruling, will most likely increase. Attempts at a corporate coups such as this TPP agreement will continue and will keep resurfacing in various re-invented forms until one day one will be successful. We have already seen this pattern with the repeated attempts to impose limits the Internet.

There are organizations that are working towards eliminating the corrupting influence of money. Find out more about them and support their efforts.   Some of them include.

End the secret TPP negotiations

Until we bring this process into public view, there is the danger that it will be passed quickly and secretly with little or no congressional or public input. Once the details of these agreements are made public, the TPP will defeated, or at the very least modified.

There are organizations that are fighting this TPP agreement and they deserve your efforts and support. Some of them include:

http://www.citizen.org/tpp

http://www.citizenstrade.org/ctc/

People who read this article also read:


THE REAL HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

06/24/2012

QUESTIONS for the Interrogatories

By Rebekah Sutherland at becworks@gmail.com

Part One

  1.  Who funded the grants for the land development in the Colonies?
  2.  What were the names, founding dates, and  connections to the King of England by the original 13 colonies?
  3. Who owned the colonies
  4. Did each colony have its own form of government?
  5. Did the colonies have laws?
  6. Did Christopher Columbus discover and claim any of the original 13 colonies for Spain or Portugal?
  7. What is a Commodity Exchange?
  8. Did the colonies have connections to a Commodity Exchange in England?
  9. Does the word “plantation” mean a large farming enterprise?
  10. Did the King of England operate on his own as a free agent in the creation of the colonies?
  11. Did the Treaty of 1213 actually affect the ownership of the colonies?
  12. What did the Treaty of 1213 actually say?

Part Two

  1. Who were the members of the Board of Trade?
  2. Were Jews allowed on the Board?
  3. Did the original 13 colonies have a court system?
  4. What were the types of jurisdiction assigned to the courts in the colonies?
  5. What is the legal meaning of the word “federal?”
  6. Did Commercial Contracts in the United States evolve from something else?
  7. Is there a difference between Government commerce and Private commerce in law?
  8. Do Admiralty courts still exist today?
  9. Why is there paper money, if the Constitution does not allow it?
  10. Did the British International Bankers have other names in history?

Part Three

  1. Legally DEFINE: Contract, Charter, Compact and Constitution?
  2. Was the United States Constitution a charter, compact, constitution or contract?
  3. In legal terminology, is there a difference between “We, the People” and “We, the people?”
  4. In 1776, who was “We, the People” as is written on the U.S. Constitution?
  5. Why did the aristocrats meet in secret to discuss the constitution?
  6. Who actually wrote the Constitution?
  7. How did the Constitution protect The Crown’s investments in America?
  8. When did the United States come into existence?
  9. What were the terms of the Treaty of 1783?
  10. Who was the “most holy and undivided Trinity” that is mentioned in the declaration paragraph of the Treaty of 1783?
  11.  What is the legal definition of the word “church”?
  12. What is the legal definition of the word “business”?
  13. Is the United States actually a church organization, an extension of the Vatican?

Part Four

  1. Was the U.S. Constitution ‘ratified’ or ‘adopted’?
  2. What is the difference between “ratified” and “adopted” in legal terminology?
  3. Why did the wealthy aristocrats choose to adopt the compact called “the Constitution for the United States”, which was sent to them by the Vatican via the King of England on behalf of The Crown?

Part Five

  1.  What are the divisions of American Jurisprudence?
  2. What is the difference between Tort Law and Contract Law?
  3. What are the three main parts of a binding contractual agreement?
  4. Is there a legal difference between “signing” and “witnessing” a document?
  5. Was The United States Constitution “signed” or was it “witnessed?”
  6. Did the men who “witnessed” The United States Constitution participating in the beginning of a “con job” for the colonists which continues today?

Part Six

  1.  What are the legal jurisdictions mentioned by the United States Constitution and what is involved in each?
  2. Is there a difference between Admiralty Law and Maritime Law?
  3. How did Admiralty Law become the jurisdiction in the Federal Courts?
  4. How does one become financially entangled in the Admiralty Law system in the USA?
  5. What is Statutory Law?
  6. What happened in 1938 that revolutionized American jurisprudence?
  7. Why did the USA judges abandon Public Law and switch to Public Policy for decisions?
  8. For what are the international bankers waiting, if the nation is bankrupted?

Constitutional Consternation Part 1

by R.E. Sutherland, M.Ed./sciences

July 10, 2010

Presented to the Americans for Constitutional Government

Sugar Creek Club House – Annual picnic

DISCLAIMERS

1.  This author loves government so much that she desires three branches of government; and all three operating in a check-and-balanced manner.  I am pro-government when it protects the individual.

2.  I am not an attorney, nor do I hand out legal advice.  I am an American who was educated in the public school system, which taught “Ignorance of the law is no excuse.”  Therefore, I have performed my duty, studied what is available to me, used whatever talents my Creator assigned to me, and the following are my observations based upon knowledge, which the federal government mandated that I develop on my own.

3.  This author is not anti-Catholic, anti-Semitic, anti-Protestant, or anti-anything else.  This author is Pro-Factual, Pro-Truth, and Pro-Freedom.  Everything shared with you is open to your own investigation and interpretation.  You are free to “believe” anything you wish.

4.  This author is not interested in Conspiracy Theories.  A conspiracy by definition must be (1) hidden and (2) illegal.  Instead, this author is focused on items that have been written in the legal documents of Record and the legislation by which our freedoms have disappeared.  This author is only interested in being extremely correct.

5.  My work is not finished.  It is entirely selfish.  I have no hope, nor any reason, to expect others to accept what I am learning.  Forgive me for saying this, but I do not care if you reject it.  This investigation is for me.  I do not wish to save the world; instead, I must save my own sanity.  I must understand why things are happening which appear un-American.  I am hunting.  You are welcome to read the answers to my questions.  I am compiling huge amounts of research into a streamlined format to increase cognitive comprehension and to enhance discussion for further research.  My hope is that you will not place yourself in jeopardy to defend the Constitution.

INTRODUCTION

I am a scientist and a teacher with a love for investigative journalism.  My love for research was first discovered while sitting on my living room floor surrounded by encyclopedias, magazines, and books, writing a health report in the fifth grade.  The love for research is innate.  The search for answers to the questions “why” and “how” have created an incredible journey for this soul, which appears to be leading right smack into the center of the prophetic Book of Revelations, the Mayan calendar, the I Chi, and most prophetic works through the ages.

I do not create an opinion, and then find facts to support it.  Instead, I find facts, and they lead me to more questions.  That is the Scientific Method.  When facts are true, then they can be used to predict outcomes with accuracy.  That is the only real proof of factual certainty.

PROLOGUE

FACT: The  Theory of Cognitive Dissonance [TCD] was developed by  Leon Festinger and published by Stanford University Press ( 1957)    The theory says that the mind involuntarily rejects information that is not in line with previous thoughts/or actions.   Festinger observed: “A person can deal with the pressure generated by changing the dissonance of the old behavior to harmonize with information.  But if the person is committed to the old behavior and way of thinking, he simply rejects the new information.”  That explains why so many Americans say, “I don’t believe it” when they are presented with new information, and why the Left-leaning agenda is able to brand thinkers as “conspiracy nuts” and “extremists.”

I apologize to many of you today, because you are going to learn things that rearrange the molecules of your brain.  When things that we thought were true, are proven false, then it can be traumatic.  Do not hide from new realities; instead, embrace them. Make a paradigm shift and go on.   Individual responsibility for facts and truths leads one to freedom and independence.

INVESTIGATION

FACT:  About 30 years ago, a team of men came together with the sole purpose of going back through the historical legal paperwork to find out why judges were rendering the decisions they were making. The documents and original books filled up a warehouse.  Today, most of the team is dead.  They were ridiculed for their discoveries, because they had tapped into the real power behind the government.  Nonetheless, they discovered the Truth, and one of the team successfully implemented that Truth for himself.  He is the only real free Man in the country.  I interviewed him five hours and read his works.  His knowledge when combined with the other research in my files, led to incredible disclosures and understanding about our government.

CONCLUSION:   The United States of America has been locked into a Babylonian economic system the extends from the blend of pagan Emperor Constantine and the Roman Catholic Church in 382 A.D., which is under the control of the King of England, who is owned by the Vatican per the Treaty of 1213.  In 1611, King James had the Bible translated into an official English version.  King James happened to be the most powerful Freemason in history, because he  ruled Scotland and England at the same time.   In 1776, the rebellion in the colonies was halted and the aristocrats were placed into “checkmate” by the Vatican, whose message was delivered by the King’s agents.  From that point until today, Americans have been taught a Myth about their own history, which holds them in slavery to the most powerful corporation on earth which resides in Rome, Italy.  Americans have been deliberately kept ignorant of the Truth.

QUESTION: Is the United States Constitution in effect today?

FACT:  President Bush II told the GOP leadership during a meeting about the Patriot Act in November of 2005:  QUOTE:”Stop throwing the Constitution in my face! It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

FACT:  Citizens feel like they are under siege from all branches of government.  They must pay taxes and fees that consume over 50% of their earned wages.  They formed the National Rifle Association and the Gun Owners of America to prevent the government from taking away firearms, which are supposedly protected under the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights. There is an invasion from Mexico that is ignored by the federal level, yet it is constitutionally mandated to protect the borders.

QUESTION:  Where are the Declaration of Independence and The United States Constitution physically located?

ANSWER: The Declaration of Independence is missing.

QUOTE:  In the Woman’s Day magazine, July 7, 2009, there is a box entitled, “Independence Day by the Numbers” which states: “25 = Number of copies of the Declaration of Independence known to exist.  (No originals with the famous signatures are known to remain.) END QUOTE

ANSWER:  The original handwritten copy of The United States Constitution, according to the National Archives and records Administration, QUOTE:  “ . .. Is on display at the National Archives and Records Administration in Washington, D.C.” END QUOTE

QUESTION:  Can Americans access all of their pubic documents?

ANSWER: No.

QUOTE: “2006 controversy over reclassification– In March 2006, it was revealed by the Archivist of the United States in a public hearing that a memorandum of understanding between Collins and various government agencies existed to ‘reclassify’, (i.e., withdraw from public access), certain documents in the name of national security, and to do so in a manner such that researchers would not be likely to discover the process. [SOURCE: gwu.edu (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20060411/index.htm) (2006-04-11)]

QUESTION: Was the entire creation of the United States of America a con job?

ANSWER: Yes.

QUOTE from Edmond Burke in March 22, 1775 with his Speech on Conciliation with America:

“. . . Let the colonies always keep the idea of their civil rights associated with your government–they will cling and grapple to you, and no force under heaven will be of power to tear them from their allegiance.  But let it be once understood that your government may be one thing and their privileges another, that these two things may exist without any mutual relation–the cement is gone, the cohesion is loosened, and everything hastens to decay and dissolution.  As long as you have the wisdom to keep the sovereign authority of this country as the sanctuary of liberty, the sacred temple consecrated to our common faith, wherever the chosen race and sons of England worship freedom, they will turn their faces toward you.  The more they multiply, the more friends you will have, the more ardently they love liberty, the more perfect will be their obedience.  Slavery they can have; they can have it from Spain; they may have it from Prussia.  But until you become lost to all feeling of your true interest and your natural dignity, freedom they can have from none but you.  This commodity of price, of which you have the monopoly.  This is the true Act of Navigation, which binds to you the commerce of the colonies, and through them secures to you the wealth of the world.  Deny them this participation of freedom, and you break that sole bond which originally made, and must still preserve, the unity of the empire. . . Let us get an American revenue as we have got an American empire.  English privileges have made it all that it is; English privileges alone will make it all it can be.”

QUESTION:  Is there legal evidence that the Constitution did not apply to the American people at large from the very beginning?

ANSWER: Yes.

QUOTE:

The Padleford Case

“But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in Court, on the ground of a breach in the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. States are the parties to it.

Padleford, Fay & Co. v. The Mayor & Aldermen of the City of Savanna, 14 Ga 438, 520, S.C. Georgia (1854)

Interrogatories about the Constitution and American Law
By R.E. Sutherland, M.Ed./sciences

Part One

OBJECTIVE: If you do not know where you came from, then you certainly cannot know where you are going.  It is time to review history and pull together some of the lesser known facts for edification and purification of what America was, is and chooses to become.  Seek the Truth, and then you will become aware of the shackles on your ankles and the blinders on your eyes.

NOTE: This author has chosen to use well known academic sources for the concepts commonly taught at the high school level.  As the answers become more complicated, the more analytical and legal sources will be used.  This is an attempt to keep a difficult subject as simple as possible.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

QUOTE: “The reason why [deception cannot be forced on an Individual] is because deception has to be first created, then conveyed, and then accepted by others – then only can deception succeed.  Deception can only find fertility in a human mind to the extent that mind is receptive to it; similarly, in a sense, it actually takes two people to manufacture a successful lie: the first to utter the lie, and the second to accept it as such.”  –1985, Invisible Contracts, by  George Mercier.

1.  Who funded the grants for the land development in the original 13 Colonies?

ANSWER: There were several entities involved in exploring America, but the King of England was the point of contact. Other countries said that they had claim to lands; however, they were not clever enough to get the paperwork straight, nor were they strong enough to defend their legal Claim; hence, they lost both the legal and physical battle for occupation of America.

2.  What were the names,  founding dates, and connections to the King of England by the original 13 colonies?

[SOURCE: World Book Encyclopedia (WBE)]

ANSWER:
1067-Virginia – Charter by King to the Virginia Company of London
1620-Massachusetts – Charter granted by the King to the Puritans
1623-New Hampshire – King appointed Council of New England for settlement
1624-New York – Charter by King to Duke of York
1622-Connecticut – Charter by King to John Winthrop
1634-Maryland – Charter by King to Lord Baltimore
1636-Rhode Island – King granted “Charter of Rhode Island & Providence Plantations”
1638-Delaware – Charter by King to Duke of York
1643-Pennsylvania – Grant by King to William Penn
1653-North Carolina – Grant by King to Sir Robert Heath
1660-New Jersey – Grant by King to Duke of York
1670-South Carolina – Grant by King to Eight “Lords Proprietors”
1733-Georgia – Grant by King to a Corporation entitled:  “Trustees for Establishing the Colony of Georgia in America

3.  Who owned the colonies?

ANSWER: The legal contracting documents for the colonies were of three types, but all of them were under the direction of the King of England:

(a) royal – under the direct control of the King
(b) proprietary-under the control of a Proprietor, an appointed by the King
(c) corporate-under a charter obtained from the King of England by a company with stockholders. [SOURCE: WBE]

4.  Did each colony have its own form of government?

ANSWER: Each colony had a governor and a legislature; however, the King of England appointed the governor over the royal colonies.  In proprietary colonies, the King appointed the Proprietor, who appointed the governor.  In Connecticut and Rhode Island the people elected the governor; however, Connecticut was under the Fundamental Orders until it received a royal charter in 1662 and Rhode Island was under the English charter of 1663, which served as its constitution.  [SOURCE: WBE]

5.  Did the colonies have laws?

ANSWER: The laws that were passed by any of the colonial legislatures had to be approved by the English government.  Governors appointed by the King had the responsibility of carrying out his orders.  The King expected them to enforce the laws of England, especially acts of Parliament that regulated colonial trade.  [SOURCE:  WBE]

6.  Did Christopher Columbus discover and claim any of the original 13 colonies for Spain or Portugal?

ANSWER: No.  Columbus traveled around the areas of Jamaica, Costa Rica, Panama, etc. [SOURCE: WBE]

7.  What is a Commodity Exchange?

ANSWER: “Commodity exchanges are voluntary trade associations.  They are called organized markets, because all members must follow certain trading rules.  All business, for example, must be conducted on the trading floor within certain hours.  Rules set the commission (fee) that may be charged in a transaction, and the time within which payment must be made.” [SOURCE: WBE]

8.  Did the colonies have connections to a Commodity Exchange in England?

ANSWER: Yes, It was called the Board of Trade (1621-1970)
QUOTE:
URL: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/
“The1621 Privy Council, directed by the King, ‘to take into their consideration, the true causes of the decay of trade and scarcity of coin within the Kingdom and to consult the means for the removing of these inconveniences.’  As a result a committee of inquiry was set up named ‘The Committee of Privy Council for Trade and Foreign Plantations’ (this is still the formal title of the ‘Board of Trade’) and this committee can be regarded as the germ of the Board of Trade.”

“Throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, trade matters remained the responsibility of Privy Council Committees.  In 1696 William III set up a body of eight paid Commissioners ‘for promoting the trade of our Kingdom and for inspecting and improving our plantations in America and elsewhere.’”

9.  Does the word “plantation” mean a large farming enterprise?

ANSWER: No.  The definition found in Burke on Conciliation of the Colonies stated, “Plantations–colonies; the plantings of a new society or race.  The term is regularly so used in Acts and Charters, and has no reference whatever to cultivation of the soil.”

10.  Did the King of England operate on his own as a free agent in the creation of the colonies?

ANSWER: No.  The King of England was bound to the Treaty of 1213.  The following brief history explains who was actually in charge of the colonies.

QUOTE:
[ INTRO:  The King refused to accept Stephen Langton as the Archbishop of Canterbury by Pope Innocent III in 1208, and the King was excommunicated from the Catholic Church by the Pope for his disobedience to contractual agreements to the Crown.  The Pope and the King owed money to the Crown bankers, so the Pope had to reign in a naughty King in order to avoid default to The Crown.]

“Faced with defeat by the forces aligned against him by the Vatican, King John ran for cover, and sought to regain the support of the Pope.  He returned the title to his kingdoms of England and Ireland to the Pope, as vassals, swore submission and loyalty to him, accepted Langton as Archbishop of Canterbury, and offered the Pope a vassal’s bond of fealty and homage, an annual tribute of 1,000 marks (equivalent to a bit more than 666 pounds sterling) and the return of the Church property he had seized when he had rebelled against it.

“Two months later, in July 1213, King John was: absolved of excommunication, at Winchester, by the return Arch Bishop of Canterbury Langton.

“Three months later, on October 3, 1213, King John ratified his surrender of his kingdoms to the Pope, who by virtue of his position as Vicar of Christ claims ownership of everything and everyone, on earth in the tradition of the Nazarene-Communist supercapitalist superdictatorship that is true fundamentalist Christianity.

“On April 21, 1214, the Pope, in Rome, formally accepted King John’s surrender of his kingdoms and his pledge of vassal (together with the moneys paid in tribute); and three months later, in July 1214, Pope Innocent III raised the interdict against the English.

“Thus the Pope assured the English of ‘access to Heaven,’ from which they had been ‘barred’ by their king’s opposition to the church’s Nazarene, or Communist, totalitarianism and denial of civil rights to mankind.”

[SOURCE: British Museum Publication G. R. C. Davis, entitled Magna Carta (211), and American Counsel of Christian Laymen: How Red is The Federal Counsel of Churches.]

11.  Did the Treaty of 1213 actually affect the ownership of the colonies?

ANSWER: The Vatican owned the colonies, but let the King serve as the manager for the enterprise.  The Vatican was busy fighting Crusades and expanding The Kingdom.

12.  What did the Treaty of 1213 actually say?

ANSWER: The original Treaty of 1213 is located in the London Archives and is available to Ph.D.s; however, a copy of a translation has been made available.  It remains in power to this day.  It states:

QUOTE:The King’s Concessions of May 15, 1213 to the Pope–“We wish it to be known to all of you, through this our charter, furnished with our seal, that inasmuch as we had offended in many ways God and our mother the holy church, and in consequence are known to have very much needed the divine mercy, and can not offer anything worthy for making due satisfaction to God and to the church unless we humiliate ourselves and our kingdoms: we, wishing to humiliate ourselves for Him who humiliated Himself for us unto death, the grace of the Holy Spirit inspiring, not induced by force or compelled by fear, but of our own good and spontaneous will and by the common counsel of our barons, do offer and freely concede to God and His holy apostles Peter and Paul and to our mother the holy Roman church, and to our lord pope Innocent and to his Catholic successors, the whole kingdom of England and the whole kingdom Ireland, with all their rights and appurtenances, for the remission of our sins and of those of our whole race as well for the living as for the dead; and now receiving and holding them, as it were a vassal, from God and the Roman church, in the presence of that prudent man Pandulph, subdeacon and of the household of the lord pope Innocent, and his catholic successors and the Roman church, according to the form appended; and in the presence of the lord pope, if we shall be able to come before him, we shall do liege homage to him; binding our successors aid our heirs by our wife forever, in similar manner to perform fealty and show homage to him who shall be chief pontiff at that time, and to the Roman church without demur.  Concessions of May 15, 1213 to the Pope.” [END QUOTE]

End of Part 1

Disclaimer: These interrogatories are not intended as legal advice, nor do they offer any political suggestions to the reader.  All verification is left to the reader.  The interrogatories by this author are an academic attempt to digest the evidence and instruction found in many sources, and especially in two books entitled: The Myth and The Reality; and A New History for America.  The Informer has displayed tremendous intellectual fortitude with his serious scientific analysis of the evidence throughout written history of the events leading up to, during, and following the Revolutionary War.  The conclusions are breath-taking upon the first reading, because the evidence demands huge paradigm shifts in knowledge structure and assumption.  Americans have no idea who they really are on a global scale, how their Courts came into being, nor why they keep losing nonexistent “Rights.”  Well, it is time to ask some very good questions and seek truthful answers.  LEARN.

 

 

 

Interrogatories about the Constitution and American Law
By R.E. Sutherland, M.Ed./sciences

Part 2

OBJECTIVE:  If you do not know where you came from, then you certainly cannot know where you are going.  It is time to review history and pull together some of the lesser known facts for edification and purification of what America was, is and chooses to become.  This is important.

13.  Who were the members of the British Board of Trade?

ANSWER
: The Board included agents of the King of England, members of the Privy Council (i.e., legislative bodies), and the Archbishop of Canterbury who represented the Church of England. [SOURCE: World Book Encyclopedia (WBE)]

14.  Were Jews allowed on the Board of trade?

ANSWER: No.  The Board refused to allow either the Lombards or the Jewish moneylenders onto their Board.  They were segregated because their religious rules made them useful for the Board.  The following quote is an excellent explanation.

QUOTE:  The Federal Reserve Conspiracy and Rockefeller (1952)
By Emanuel Josephson

“Since commerce and money are the livelihoods of nations and their peoples, the control of money is the obvious key to the control of nations and the world. …Rome’s successor the Holy Roman Empire dissimulated its interest in money and its power.  This was in accord with its professed tenets of Nazarene, theistic Communism.

“Under ecclesiastic Canon Law, even profits in business transactions were decreed to be the cardinal sin and capital offense of ‘usury’ As late as the sixteenth century, one hundred businessmen were burned at the stake in Geneva, as a penalty under Church law, for making profits in their business transactions.  Title to all wealth , as well as to the person and lives of all the earth, are claimed by the Church, on the ground that their ownership is divinely vested in the Pope as the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth.

“Thus theistic, Nazarene Communism, and the ‘modern’ religion that goes by the name of Communism and is supposedly atheist, both are basically supercapitalist and both mask their grab for money and wealth.

“Title to all wealth was vested in the Church and in its champion ‘knights,’ who at the same time assumed the role of so-called ‘protectors,’ much like the present day labor leaders of their vassals whom they mercilessly enslaved and looted.

“Both Churchmen and lay knights used the despised Jews for the conduct of their usurious financial operations, in order to avoid ‘sinning’ and the death penalty that it involved.  The Jews proved very useful and handy for that purpose. Their use was justified by their ‘CHRISTIAN’ masters in a manner that they were taught by their faith was incontrovertible.  Jews were damned and doomed by their faith and their failure to accept the divinity of Jesus and the perversion of His teachings by the Jewish merchant, Saul of Tarsus, alias St. Paul, opined the Churchmen; and therefore, it was ‘good work’ to hasten them to damnation.

“This they did by forcing their Jewish serfs to engage, as their pawns, in the ‘sin’ and ‘crime’ of ‘usury’ by which was meant the charging of interest as well as loan sharking and engaging in profitable commerce, for their Christian, ecclesiastical bosses.

“Often the Churchmen barred the Jews, by their orders and laws, from engaging in any other vocation than those to which the stigma of usury was attached, especially loan-sharking, as their agents.  This was a particular advantageous set up for the Churchmen.  For if the Jew was merciful and failed to extract from the victims everything that they possessed (i.e., the last drop of blood), he was burned at the stake as a ‘heretic.’

“On the other hand, if the Jew mercilessly followed orders of his priestly boss, was honest with his boss and amassed a fortune for him and for himself, there was nothing to bar his Christian master from exercising his cupidity and robbing his faithful loan-shark by charging him with the ‘sin’ of usury, confiscating the fortune he had made in his service, and with great hypocritic show of ‘piety,’ burn him at the stake—‘to ensure his salvation.’

“The victorious Lombard invaders of the Holy Roman Empire changed the financial situation in much the same manner as have the latter day Maffia extortioners and blackmailers.  Seizing control of the Church, they gave themselves ‘dispensation’ to disregard the Canon Law on usury.  They openly engaged in it from the very steps of the Vatican.

“Dispensation from the Canon on Usury was subsequently granted by the Vatican, in the 15th century, to the German Fuggers, the Rockefellers of that era.  Their profits from commerce, usury and the sale of papal dispensations, as agents of the Vatican, grew rapidly, as did their ‘payoff’ to the church.  They were heaped with Papal honors.  Both their grasping greed and merciless loan-sharking earned for them distrust and terror.  When one of their number was elevated to the rank of Cardinal, the Churchmen feared that the Fuggers would reach out and steal the Vatican itself.  They then decided that their Jewish pawn were more completely at their mercy, more amenable and safer.

“Trusteeship of the fortune of one of the wealthiest Christian rulers of Europe, whose confidence had been earned by honest and trustworthy dealings during the Napoleonic wars, is the source of the wealth and influence that the Rothechilds acquired in the first decades of the 19th century.

“Subsequently, after making a large loan to the hard pressed Vatican, that no Christian would consider making, they became the fiscal agents of the Vatican, received Papal decorations and preferments, and enforced the policies dictated by the Church.  It was largely in this sense that they were ‘international bankers.’  And the policies dictated by them were in effect the policies dictated by the Church.  They enforced those policies through their establishments in many lands.

“An amusing story is told of the earliest relations of the Rothschilds with the Vatican.  The Vatican found itself short of ready cash after almost half a century of war waged on it for the Jesuit Order by one of its unordained members, Adam Weishaupt, to avenge its abolition, in 1773, as ‘immoral and a menace to the Church and the Faith’ by short lived Pope Clement XIV in his Papal breve Dominus Ac Redemptor.

“Weishaupt and his fellow Jesuits cut off the income to the Vatican by launching and leading the French Revolution; by directing Napoleon’s conquest of Catholic Europe; by the revolt against the Church led by such priests as Father Hidalgo, in Mexico and Latin America; by eventually having napoleon throw Pope Pius Vii in jail at Avignon until he agreed, as the price for his release, to reestablish the Jesuit Order.  This Jesuit war on the Vatican was terminated by the Congress of Vienna and by the secret, 1822 Treaty of Verona. . .

“The Rothschilds sought to extend their financial and political dominion to the United States, for themselves primarily to serve their Vatican masters.  The Vatican’s interest in the U.S. Republic was clearly revealed in the Treaty of Verona, in which the Jesuit Order pledged itself, as the price of reestablishment, to destroy ‘the works of Satan’ that it had accomplished in setting up, by revolts, representative governments such as republics and so called ‘democracies.’

“Senator Robert Owen pointed out, in the Senate, that the prime target to which the Vatican and the ‘Holy Alliance’ directed the subversive and destructive activities of the Society of Jesus is the United States, [See Congressional Record, April 25, 1916], as well as other republics in the Western Hemisphere.  This plot, he related, was the target at which the Monroe Doctrine was directed.

“The Rothschild-Vatican cabal unsuccessfully attempted to gain control over the power of the purse in the U.S. through the First and Second Bank of the United States.  They were established under the emergency powers granted the President by the Constitution, as temporary institutions to tide the country through the periods of financial stress occasioned by the Revolutionary and 1812 Wars.” [END QUOTE]

15.  Did the original 13 colonies have a court system?

ANSWER: Yes.

QUOTE:
“Encyclopedia of American History – “in 1697 the British Board of Trade, under the Navigation Act, established vice-admiralty courts in all the colonies.  These courts had jurisdiction over Trade, ordinary maritime cases as well as prize.  It even granted jurisdiction by the Act of 1722 over infringements concerning timber.  These Admiralty courts, set up under the Townshend Acts, centered final control in America.” [Source: The New History of America, by The Informer, page 4]

16.  What were the types of jurisdiction assigned to the courts in the colonies?

ANSWER: Admiralty and maritime.

QUOTE: “Admiralty, by Benedict, 1850:
“Its necessary effect [the Act] was, however, to start the courts on that system of practice, and really to impose upon them, in admiralty and maritime cases, the civil law practice, as that under which they must continue to administer justice, even after the expiration of that act, until further provision could be made.”

“Section 105–The Purpose of the Constitutional Grant–The Essential Harmony of the Maritime Law.  The grand purpose of the Constitution was to unify the several states , the whole people, in their national, international, and interstate relations and all other purposes were subordinate and ancillary to this.

“Section 123 – The commission to the Governor as Vice-Admiral was very full, granting, in language so clear that it cannot be misunderstood, an admiralty jurisdiction as wide and beneficial as the most zealous supporters of the English Admiralty ever claimed for it.”

17.  What is the legal meaning of the word:  “federal”?

ANSWER: The word “federal” simply put means “contract.”
QUOTES: From The American College Dictionary, 1947:
“Federal – 1.  Of or pertaining to a compact or a league, esp. a league between nations or states.”
“Compact–an agreement between parties; a covenant; a contract.”

NOTE: The more modern dictionaries are missing the original definitions as the university professors began to reshape society by gradually changing the definitions of words our students learn and use.

18.  Did Commercial Contracts in the United States evolve from something else?

ANSWER: Yes.
QUOTE from Section 065, “Invisible Contracts,” by George Mercier:
“Here in the United States, in a Commercial contract factual setting, the word ‘covenant’ is an Old English Law Merchant origin, and now means only a few clauses within a larger contract. . .”

19.  Is there a difference between Government commerce and Private commerce in law?

ANSWER: Yes.
QUOTE from Section 387, “Invisible Contracts,” by George Mercier:
“Admiralty Jurisdiction is the KING’S COMMERCE of the High Seas . .. But as for that slice of Commerce going out on the High Seas without the King as a party, that Commerce is called Maritime Jurisdiction, and so Maritime is the private Commerce that transpires in a marine environment.  At least, that distinction between Admiralty and Maritime is the way things once were, but no more.”

20.  Do Admiralty courts still exist today?

ANSWER: Yes, it is the United States Federal Court system.
QUOTE:
“This is the type of court that exists today and why we cannot bring a pure Article of the Bill of Rights argument into a contract [i.e., federal] court of the Law-Merchant in their civil law.  As Benedict states at Section 5,” . .. The civil law was held to be the law of admiralty, and the course of proceedings in admiralty, closely resembled the civil law practice.”  All maritime revenue cases, whether State or United States, deals in contract. …
[Source: The New History of America, by The Informer, page 5.]

QUOTE from Section 049,  “Invisible Contracts,” by George Mercier.
“In such administrative enforcement proceedings under grievances arising out of privileges and contracts that Congress created, Federal Judges are acting MINISTERIALLY as Legislative Court, functioning as an extension of the agency for the King, and not Judicially as an Article III Court acting like neutral and disinterested referees calling the shots as umpires between adversaries; and so some steps taken by the Judge acting MINISTERIALLY, to shorten the proceedings or otherwise silence the Defendant when irrelevant subject matter is being discussed, are largely non-reversible on appeal.  In Northern Pipeline vs Marathon Pipe Line ]458 U.S. 50 (1982)], the Supreme Court ruled that Congress can create non-Article III LEGISLATIVE COURTS in three areas: Territorial Courts, Military Courts Martial, and in disputes involving privileges that Congress created in the first place [MARATHON, id., at pages 64 et seq.].  Participating in that closed private domain of King’s [government] Commerce is very much accepting and benefitting from a privilege created by Congress.

QUOTE:
“A case in admiralty does not, in fact, arise under the Constitution or Laws of the United States.”
American Ins. Co. V Canter, 1 Pet. 511, 545 (1828).

QUOTE: “We don’t use the word constitution in this court,” said the Aiken Federal Judge during a hearing for a Freedom of Information Act violation in the City of Aiken.  This author was the Plaintiff, and was awarded damages for the failure of the city to give information per the FOIA, but no discussion about the constitutional merits of the case were allowed to be discussed..

21.  The U.S. Constitution states in Article I, Section 8, “The Congress shall have Power . .. To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; . .. To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures”.  So, why is there also paper money if it is not constitutional?

ANSWER: It all began in 1751 with the English Parliament.
QUOTE from  Source: The New History of America, by The Informer, page 7:
“In March of 1751, the British Board of Trade presented Parliament with a Restraining Act, which barred the Colonies, by law, from issuing paper money and letters of Credit. This gave the King’s orders the validity of formal law.  The Colonies didn’t buy it, for it destroyed their control of the trade.  You see, there was no gold or silver being mined in America.  They had to rely on gold and silver from other countries.  England had most of the gold.

“On July 10, 1754, the Confederacy was born because of this, so they could issue paper money, only on their joint order.  Ben Franklin had long advocated this.

“In March of 1775, the Pennsylvania Assembly borrowed money and issued bills of Credit without authorization of either King or Governor.  The Board of Trade tried another ploy and said that Gold and Silver have intrinsic value, and therefore, should be used by the Colonies.  Because of ‘them’ issuing ‘paper money’ it ‘ruins the Colonies,’ so said the Tories.

“Now get this people, Franklin replied to the contrary saying that paper money served as a medium of exchange and credit had made possible the growth of the Colonies and their trade.  He told the Board of Trade that the Tories argued that the paper money issued by the colonies was a dilution of their control of wealth.

“This explains why the federal government is denied the power to issue currency other than coin or to set up or charter banks.  But they do it under ‘emergency power.’  This is why the present day private Federal Reserve System, counterpart of the British Board of Trade, runs this country today.

“Now you know why the Crown initiated the coin only clause in the Constitution, so the private bankers could control the paper credit.  Paper is NOT money.”

QUOTE from Section 390, “Invisible Contracts,’ by George Mercier:
“However, today in the United States, all Commercial contracts that private parties enter into with each other that are under Maritime Jurisdiction, are now also under Admiralty: Reason: the beneficial use and reticulation of Federal Reserve Notes makes the King [government] an automatic silent Equity third party to the arrangements.”

End of Part 2.  To be continued …

Disclaimer: These interrogatories are not intended as legal advice, nor do they offer any political suggestions to the reader.  All verification is left to the reader.  The interrogatories by this author are an academic attempt to digest the evidence and instruction found in many sources, and especially in two books entitled: The Myth and The Reality; and A New History for America.  The Informer has displayed tremendous intellectual fortitude with his serious scientific analysis of the evidence throughout written history of the events up to, during, and following the Revolutionary War.  The conclusions are breath-taking upon the first reading, because the evidence demands huge paradigm shifts in knowledge structure and assumption.  Americans have no idea who they really are on a global scale, how their Courts came into being, nor why they keep losing nonexistent “Rights.”  Well, it is time to ask some very good questions and seek truthful answers.  LEARN.

Interrogatories about the Constitution and American Law

By R.E. Sutherland, M.Ed./sciences

Part 3

OBJECTIVE:  If you do not know where you came from, then you certainly cannot know where you are going.  It is time to review history and pull together some of the lesser known facts for edification and purification of what America was, is and chooses to become.  This is important.

22.  What other names were given to the British International Bankers in history?

ANSWER: They were called Fruggers, Knights Templar, Gisors, Tuscans, etc., and today they are called The Crown.  [The Myth and The Reality, by The Informer, Page 6]

23.  Legally DEFINE: Contract, Charter, Compact and Constitution?

 

ANSWER:

Contract: “An agreement between two or more persons which creates an obligation to do or not to do a particular thing. . . A legal relationship consisting of the rights and duties of the contracting parties; a promise or set of promises constituting an agreement between the parties that gives each a legal duty to the other and also the right to seek a remedy for the breach of those duties. [Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition]

Charter: “An instrument emanating from the sovereign power, in the nature of a grant, either to the whole nation, or to a class or portion of the people, to a corporation, or to a colony or dependency, assuring to them certain rights, liberties, or powers . .. A charter differs from a constitution, in that the former is granted by the sovereign, while the later is established by the people themselves. [Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition]

Compact: “. . .A contract between parties, which creates obligations and rights capable of being enforced and contemplated as such between the parties, in their distinct and independent characters. . .” [Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition]

Constitution: “ . . . A charter of government deriving its whole authority from the governed.  The written instrument agreed upon by the people of the Union, or a particular states, . .. In a more general sense, any fundamental or important law or edict; as the Novel Constitutions of Justinian; the Constitutions of Clarendon.”  [Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition]

24.  Was the United States Constitution a charter, compact, constitution or contract?

 

ANSWER:  It was a compact between the Vatican, who controlled the King of England, and the aristocrats of the thirteen colonies.  [The New History of America, by The Informer, Page 20]

QUOTE:  John C. Calhoun, in 1831 said, “The Constitution of the United States is, in fact, a compact, to which each State is a party.” [SOURCE: The New History of America, by The Informer, page 20.]

QUOTE:   Thomas Jefferson in 1789 stated, “To this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-states forming, as to itself, the other party.”

QUOTE:  “Patrick Henry said he was ‘no longer a Virginia, but an American.’  He did not say he was an American citizen, because the compact merged all confederate states as if one, and you couldn’t tell the difference.”  [SOURCE:  The New History of America, by The Informer, Page 20]

QUOTE:  “United States is a place within America and it is not a country.  Also, what you were not told were the framers signed the Constitution as witnesses only.  In law, that is an impossibility to witness a document no one signed . . . The Constitution was not only never signed by anybody, but it was never delivered by anybody, or to anybody’s agent or attorney.  It can therefore be of no more validity as a contract, than can any other instrument that was never signed or delivered . . . On general principles of law and reason, the oaths which these pretended agents of the people take ‘to support the Constitution,’ are of no validity or obligation.  And why?  For this, if for no other reason, viz., that they are given to nobody.  There is no privity (as the lawyers say) –that is, no mutual recognition, consent, and agreement—between those who take these oaths, and any other persons.”  [SOURCE:  The Myth and The Reality, by The Informer, pages 10-13]

25.  In legal terminology, is there a difference between “We, the People” and “We, the people?”

 

ANSWER:  Yes.  In the phrase, “We, the People” the capitalized word makes it a proper noun, which means that “the People” was a specific group (i.e., the aristocrats).  In the phrase, “We, the people” the common noun indicates that the phrase refers to people in a general sense.  [The Myth and The Reality, by The Informer, Pages 25-26]

26.   In 1776, who was “We, the People” referring to in the U.S. Constitution?

ANSWER:  The “People” referenced by the Constitution were the wealthy aristocrats.   All of the men held Grants and Charters with the King.  They owed him, as well as The Crown, interest on the credit extended to them for planting the new society.  They profited very well from their exports all over the world.  [The Myth and The Reality, by The Informer, Page 23]

QUOTE:  Patrick Henry said, “ . .. But, Sir, give me leave to demand, what right had they to say, ‘We, the People?  If the States be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great consolidated National Government of the people of all the states.” [SOURCE: The Myth and The Reality, by The Informer, page25.]

27.  Why did the aristocrats meet in secret to discuss the Constitution?

ANSWER:  The Founding Fathers were in very big trouble.  They were wealthy men, who had credit with the King via The Crown.  They owed contractual debts, which the King expected them to pay. The Crown fronted the money for the King’s enterprise, so the International Bankers would hold the King responsible for that debt, if the colonists refused to pay their debts.  All were obligated to the King with written and signed contracts.  The leaders in the colonies were held responsible for the rebellion (i.e., Revolutionary War).  They were wealthy aristocrats, who also had large parcels of land, huge estates, and other revenue producing businesses back in the old country.  The Vatican controlled King placed the wealthy aristocrats into a political ‘checkmate’.   The King sent them a choice.  They could lose everything they owned in Europe, or they could quietly go along with a form of government that would allow the King to manipulate the future, on behalf of The Crown, for profit, and the aristocrats would go along with a lie to the people, which was to tell them they won the war.  The wealthy men chose to deceive the public.  They were told to Witness their agreement on the compact document to pledge that they would cooperate with the King.  The compact was called “The Constitution for the United States”, which is duly stated in paragraph number one of the document.  [SOURCE:  The Myth and The Reality, by The Informer, pages 22-24]

NOTICE the words “for the United, because these men did something on behalf of unsuspecting fellow countrymen.  The public school system and elected officials have created a wonderful myth for us to believe about the derivation of the Constitution, but it was not an honorable meeting.

28.  Who actually wrote the Constitution?

 

ANSWER:  The Vatican along with The Crown drafted the constitution, and the King’s agents delivered it to the aristocrats in America for witnessing.  [SOURCE:  The Myth and The Reality, by The Informer, Pages 22-27.]

29.  How did the Constitution protect The Crown’s investments in America?

ANSWER:  Article VI of the Constitution states: “All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution as under the Confederation. . . ”

30. When did the United States actually come into existence?

ANSWER:  The website for the Central Intelligence Agency states: “Britain’s American colonies broke with the mother country in 1776 and were recognized as the new nation of the United States of America following the Treaty of Paris in 1783.”

 NOTICE:  The USA was not official for seven years after the announced “victory” of the Revolutionary War.

31.  What were the terms of the Treaty of Paris in 1783?

QUOTE:

The Ten Articles of the Treaty of 1783

Courtesy of the National Archives and Records Administration.

Preface. Declares the treaty to be “in the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity,” states the bona fides of the signatories, and declares the intention of both parties to “forget all past misunderstandings and differences” and “secure to both perpetual peace and harmony.”

1. Acknowledging the Thirteen Colonies to be free, sovereign and independent States, and that the British Crown and all heirs and successors relinquish claims to the Government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof;[2]

2. Establishing the boundaries between the United States and British North America (for an account of two strange anomalies resulting from this part of the Treaty, based on inaccuracies in the Mitchell Map—see Northwest Angle and the Republic of Indian Stream);

3. Granting fishing rights to United States fishermen in the Grand Banks, off the coast of Newfoundland and in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence;

4. Recognizing the lawful contracted debts to be paid to creditors on either side;

5. The Congress of the Confederation will “earnestly recommend” to state legislatures to recognize the rightful owners of all confiscated lands “provide for the restitution of all estates, rights, and properties, which have been confiscated belonging to real British subjects [Loyalists]”;

6. United States will prevent future confiscations of the property of Loyalists;

7. Prisoners of war on both sides are to be released and all property left by the British army in the United States unmolested (including slaves);

8. Great Britain and the United States were each to be given perpetual access to the Mississippi River;

9. Territories captured by Americans subsequent to treaty will be returned without compensation;

10. Ratification of the treaty was to occur within six months from the signing by the contracting parties.

* Spain received East and West Florida under the separate Anglo-Spanish peace agreement

[SOURCE:  Wikipedia.com]

32. Who was the “most holy and undivided Trinity” that is mentioned in the declaration paragraph of the Treaty of 1783?

ANSWER:  The Vatican, the King of England, and The Crown (i.e., international bankers).  [SOURCE:  The Myth and The Reality, by The Informer, Page 100]

33.  What is the legal definition of the word “church”?

 

ANSWER: A simple definition of church would be that it is a business.

QUOTE: “Church–In its most general sense, the religious society founded and established by Jesus Christ, to receive, preserve, and propagate His doctrines and ordinances.  It may also mean a body of communicants gathered into church order; body or community of Christians, united under one form of government by the profession of the same faith and observance of the same ritual and ceremonies; place where persons regularly assemble for worship; congregation; organization for religious purposes; religious society or body; the clergy or officialdom of a religious body.” [Black’s Law Dictionary]

34.  What is the legal definition of the word “business”?

QUOTE: “. . . Enterprise in which person engaged shows willingness to invest time and capital on future outcome.  Doggett v Burnet, 62 App.D.C. 103, 65 F.2d 191, 194.” [Black’s Law Dictionary]

35.  Is the United States actually a church organization, an extension of the Vatican?

 

ANSWER:  Yes.

QUOTE:  “If North Carolina is only a geographical place in America in which the State resides along with you, who is supreme?  Is not the State a corporate religion?  Is the Lord a religion?  I think not.  Are there many religions in the State?  To be recognized as a religion do not those religions have to register with the IRS/FED/STATE team to get a 501c-3 exemption?  This goes against what the “government” preaches, that being, church and State separation.  Government drones are hypocrites, because to be a church you must be controlled by the very State that boasts that church and State must not mix.  This is where logical minds do not prevail in the masses and they have no reasoning or common sense.  Who then is the master, if the State will not recognize the religion, if not licensed?  So one religion controls all others through license.  Shades of merry ole England and the Crown that controlled all religions before the what, revolutionary war?  But what if you are under another “church” called government?  The Lord said he set His Church upon this Rock, meaning he set His GOVERNMENT upon this earth, NOT some church building or religion . . . you can see why the State is telling you that they can’t mix the Church (Government) of the Lord and the State’s government (church?).  How fatuous to believe we are free people and can worship the Almighty and follow His laws without the Crown interfering; paying taxes to a rogue IRS that cannot be proven to be created by the legislature and which operates through fear, extortion, threats, killings, jailing, seizures, suicides and the like to keep everyone in bondage to pay a tribute to the elite integrationists using England as a front since it too went bankrupt before the United States did in 1861. . .  [The New History of America, by The Informer, Pages 16-17]

End of Part 3.  To be continued …

Disclaimer: These interrogatories are not intended as legal advice, nor do they offer any political suggestions to the reader.  All verification is left to the reader.  The interrogatories by this author are an academic attempt to digest the evidence and instruction found in many sources, and especially in two books entitled: The Myth and The Reality; and A New History for America.  The Informer has displayed tremendous intellectual fortitude with his serious scientific analysis of the evidence throughout written history of the events up to, during, and following the Revolutionary War.  The conclusions are breath-taking upon the first reading, because the evidence demands huge paradigm shifts in knowledge structure and assumption.  Americans have no idea who they really are on a global scale, how their Courts came into being, nor why they keep losing nonexistent “Rights.”  Well, it is time to ask some very good questions and seek truthful answers.  LEARN.

Interrogatories about the Constitution and American Law
By R.E. Sutherland, M.Ed./sciences

Part 4

 

OBJECTIVE: If you do not know where you came from, then you certainly cannot know where you are going.  It is time to review history and pull together some of the lesser known facts for edification and purification of what America was, is and chooses to become.  Seek the Truth, and then you will become aware of the shackles on your ankles and the blinders on your eyes.
36.  Was the U.S. Constitution “ratified” or “adopted”?

ANSWER:  It was adopted.

QUOTE:  [Preamble to the Bill of Rights – “THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution …”

37.  What is the difference between “ratified” and “adopted” in legal terminology?

ANSWER:

“Adopt.  To accept, appropriate, choose, or select.  To make that one’s own (property or act) which was not so originally.  To accept, consent to, and put into effective operation; as in the case of a constitution, constitutional amendment, ordinance, court rule, or by-law.”

“Ratify.  To approve and sanction; to make valid; to confirm; to give sanction to.  To authorize or otherwise approve, retroactively, an agreement or conduct either, expressly or by implication.”

[SOURCE:  Black’s Law Dictionary]

38.   Why did the wealthy aristocrats choose to adopt the compact called “The Constitution for the United States”, which was sent to them by the Vatican via the King of England on behalf of The Crown?

ANSWER:  The King had the leaders of the colonies in a ‘checkmate.’  They owed him money.

QUOTE:  “In March of 1775 the Pennsylvania Assembly borrowed money and issued bills of Credit without authorization of either King or [appointed] Governor.”  [The New History of America by The Informer, Page 7]

QUOTE from Our Enemy the State, by Albert J. Nock:

“ . . . More than half the delegates to the constitutional convention in 1787 were either investors or speculators in the public funds.  Probably sixty percent of the values represented by these securities were fictitious, and were so regarded even by their holders.

QUOTE from The New History of America, by The Informer, Pages 31-33:

“They also had many land holdings and businesses in Europe . . . Well, they won independence from the King until the King wanted all his money he invested in his British colonies, now called the confederate states.  If the British Board of Trade was concerned in 1700 about losing wealth, then this was the time for them to take control of the situation.  After all, paper money was being printed in just about every confederate state, thereby wiping out the Bank of England’s control of the wealth.  The Treaty of 1606 still existed, (see James Montgomery’s work) so the King gave the ultimatum to the ‘men.’   . . .

“America had no navy to defend the waters.  It was dependent on the trading with foreign countries of Europe using British trading ships.  America was not yet self sufficient.  The King knowing this said to the men, I will seize all your property and business in England, under escheat.  I will run a blockade on the ocean and allow no trading to be carried on.  I will have total control in the amount of time your stores run out due to lack of trade.  They knew it was just a matter of time for this to happen, so, they agreed to cut a deal.

“This deal was to make the confederation appear to be very frail so they could draft up a compact.  This compact would suck in all the states in which the states would be forbidden to use their own paper money.  The corporate States, which you did not create, were bound to pay their debts in silver, Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1.  But, it cannot extend to the people, they can use anything they want.  Now you can understand a little better what I stated near the beginning about the British Board of Trade controlling the whole works. .  . As Patrick Henry stated, are you starting to ‘Smell a Rat?’

“ Is it any wonder why the ‘We, the People’ rushed to seal the deal between the King and themselves, leaving us the little people in the dark? . .  This would allow the British Board of Trade to use its international banking cartel to again control the trade through the use of its paper notes.  In exchange the King would solidify, by two more treaties, under the compact/agreement of the new Constitution, his hold on his property in America.  England was very near bankruptcy and had to hold onto its holdings in America.  Being business men, the ‘We’s’ jumped at the offer and a ‘new constitution’ was formed.  It was formed by “WE the People.” Was the We the People the 75% of the people in America?  No!  The “We the People” were only those that drafted the Constitution, therefore the need for the capital P in People. …

“So after all the smoke cleared the people had a new King and some vice-admirals called governors of each of the political subdivision.  Those in power still ruled the 75% of the masses that didn’t give a darn.”

 

End of Part 4  . . . to be continued

Disclaimer: These interrogatories are not intended as legal advice, nor do they offer any political suggestions to the reader.  All verification is left to the reader.  The interrogatories by this author are an academic attempt to digest the evidence and instruction found in many sources, and especially in two books entitled: The Myth and The Reality; and A New History for America.  The Informer has displayed tremendous intellectual fortitude with his serious scientific analysis of the evidence throughout written history of the events leading up to, during, and following the Revolutionary War.  The conclusions are breath-taking upon the first reading, because the evidence demands huge paradigm shifts in knowledge structure and assumption.  Americans have no idea who they really are on a global scale, how their Courts came into being, nor why they keep losing nonexistent “Rights.”  Well, it is time to ask some very good questions and seek truthful answers.  LEARN.

Interrogatories about the Constitution and American Law

By R.E. Sutherland, M.Ed./sciences

Part 5

OBJECTIVE:  If you do not know where you came from, then you certainly cannot know where you are going.  It is time to review history and pull together some of the lesser known facts for edification and purification of what America was, is and chooses to become.  This is important.

39. What are the divisions of American Jurisprudence?

 

ANSWER:  There are two major divisions: Tort Law and Contract Law. [Invisible Contracts, by George Mercier.  Section 013.]

QUOTE:   In Section 018, Invisible Contracts, by George Mercier states:

“In general terms, both American Jurisprudence and Nature that it is modeled after are divided into actions that fall generally under Tort Law and Contract Law.. . . For a presentation of the history of the bifurcation of Law into Tort and Contract going back into 1200 A.D., see C.H.S. Fifoot in HISTORY AND SOURCES OF THE COMMON LAW, TORT AND CONTRACT; [Stevens and Sons, London (1949)].

40.  What is the difference between Tort Law and Contract Law?

QUOTE:  In Sections 018-021 , Invisible Contracts, by George Mercier states:

“Very simply, Contract Law applies to govern a settlement of a grievance whenever a contract is in effect.  This means that only certain types of very narrow arguments are allowed to be plead in Contract Law grievances, since only the content of the contract is of any relevance in the grievance settlement . . .”Commercial contracts are born, live and then die, in their own strata, without the Constitution offering any significant restrainment on Legislative intervention . . .In contrast . . . we have Tort Law.  Think of Tort Law as being a Judgment Law to settle grievances between persons where there are damages, but without any contract in effect between the parties.”

EXAMPLES of Contract Law: (1) Securities law, (2) Estate Inheritance law, (3) Quasi-Contracts, etc.

EXAMPLES of Tort Law: (1) Civil Rights, (2) Wrongful Death, (3) Product Liability, (4) Aviation law, (5) Personal Injury, (6) Accident Recovery, (7) Professional Malpractice, (8) Unfair Competition, (9) Admiralty and Maritime Torts, (10) Fraud and Anti-Trust actions, etc.

QUOTE:  Wigmore, Select Cases on the Law of Torts, page vii (1912 states:

“Never did a Name so obstruct a true understanding of the Thing.  To such a plight has it brought us that a favorite mode of defining a Tort is to declare merely that it is not a Contract.  As if a man were to define Chemistry by pointing out that it is not Physics or Mathematics.”

 

41.  What are the three main parts of a binding contractual agreement?

ANSWER: The three parts of a binding contract are: Offer, Acceptance, and Consideration.

Explanation:  (1) An Offer  must be made to someone else, (2) .the Offer must be voluntarily Accepted, and (3) if both parties “voluntarily give, exchange, perform, or promise one another something of value, then you’ve got Consideration. [SOURCE:  Law for Dummies, by John Ventura, JD, Page 16]

QUOTE:  In Section 013 of, Invisible Contracts, by George Mercier states:

“ … A perfect, well-rounded contract requires not only a promise and a Consideration, but a participation by each party in both of these elements . . .”  – Edward Bennett in Considerations Moving From Third Persons in 9 Harvard law Review 233, at 233 (1895).

QUOTE:  In Section 001 of, Invisible Contracts, by George Mercier states:

“Whenever there is an exchange of benefits and there remains some lingering expectations of some duty between two parties, then an actual INVISIBLE CONTRACT is in effect . . . as it is said that the duty owed back to the party initially transferring the benefits is RECIPROCAL in nature.”

42.  Is there a legal difference between “signing” and “witnessing” a document?

ANSWER: Yes.

QUOTE: “Sign –To affix one’s name to a writing or instrument, for the purpose of authenticating or executing it, or to give it effect as one’s act.   . . To make any mark, as upon a document, in token of knowledge, approval acceptance, or obligation.”

QUOTE: “Witness – In general, one who, being present, personally sees or perceives a thing; a beholder, spectator, or eyewitness.   . . One who testifies to what he has seen, heard, or otherwise observed. . . A person attesting genuiness of signature to document by adding his signature. .. One who is called upon to be present at a transaction, or the making of a will. . . “ [Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition]

43.  Was The United States Constitution “signed” or was it “witnessed?”

ANSWER:  Read the document.  It states, “Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth in Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names, . . .”

NOTE:  Remember in Part 3, Item 25, one learned the difference between “We, the People” and “We, the people.”  The constitution was created for and witnessed by a specific body of men, and it did not apply to the more general population, which is clearly noted in the way it uses capital letters.

44.  Did the men who “witnessed”  The United States Constitution participating in the beginning of a “con job” for the colonists which continues today?

ANSWER:  Yes.

QUOTE from Edmond Burke in March 22, 1775 with his Speech on Conciliation with America:

“. . . Let the colonies always keep the idea of their civil rights associated with your government–they will cling and grapple to you, and no force under heaven will be of power to tear them from their allegiance.  But let it be once understood that your government may be one thing and their privileges another that these two things may exist without any mutual relation–the cement is gone, the cohesion is loosened and everything hastens to decay and dissolution.  As long as you have the wisdom to keep the sovereign authority of this country as the sanctuary of liberty, the sacred temple consecrated to our common faith, wherever the chosen race and sons of England worship freedom, they will turn their faces toward you.  The more they multiply, the more friends you will have, the more ardently they love liberty, the more perfect will be their obedience.  Slavery they can have; tey can have it from Spain; they may have it from Prussia.  But until you become lost to all feeling of your true interest and your natural dignity, freedom they can have from none but you.  This commodity of price, of which you have the monopoly.  This is the true Act of Navigation, which binds to you the commerce of the colonies, and through them secures to you the wealth of the world.  Deny them this participation of freedom, and you break that sole bond which originally made, and must still preserve, the unity of the empire. . . Let us get an American revenue as we have got an American empire.  English privileges have made it all that it is; English privileges alone will make it all it can be.”

End of Part 5.  To be continued …

Disclaimer: These interrogatories are not intended as legal advice, nor do they offer any political suggestions to the reader.  All verification is left to the reader.  The interrogatories by this author are an academic attempt to digest the evidence and instruction found in many sources, and especially in two books entitled: The Myth and The Reality; and A New History for America.  The Informer has displayed tremendous intellectual fortitude with his serious scientific analysis of the evidence throughout written history of the events up to, during, and following the Revolutionary War.  The conclusions are breath-taking upon the first reading, because the evidence demands huge paradigm shifts in knowledge structure and assumption.  Americans have no idea who they really are on a global scale, how their Courts came into being, nor why they keep losing nonexistent “Rights.”  Well, it is time to ask some very good questions and seek truthful answers.  LEARN.

Interrogatories about the Constitution and American Law

By R.E. Sutherland, M.Ed./sciences

 

Part 6

 

OBJECTIVE: If you do not know where you came from, then you certainly cannot know where you are going.  It is time to review history and pull together some of the lesser known facts for edification and purification of what America was, is and chooses to become.  This is important.

45.  What are the legal jurisdictions mentioned by the United States Constitution and what is involved in each?

ANSWER: Common Law, Equity Law, and Admiralty/Maritime Law. [Source:  UCC Connection, by Howard Freeman, page 5]

Common Law.  “In general, it is a body of law that develops and derives through judicial decisions, as distinguished from legislative enactments.  The ‘common law’ is all the statutory and case law background of England and the American colonies before the American revolution.” [Source:  Black’s Law Dictionary]

LAYMEN definition: There is no Compelled Law.  Covers a damages.  This is Criminal law.

Equity Jurisdiction.  “In a general sense, the jurisdiction belonging to a court of equity..” [Source:  Black’s Law Dictionary]

LAYMEN definition: One is compelled to perform to the letter of any contract.  This is CIVIL law.

Admiralty law and Maritime Law.  Involves commerce on the High Seas and International Contracts.  Involves Compelled Performance with Criminal Penalties.

46.  Is there a difference between Admiralty Law and Maritime Law?

ANSWER: Yes.

(1)  Admiralty Law. Commerce on the high seas that involves the King (i.e., government).

QUOTE: Admiralty is a subdivision of King’s Commerce such that all of King’s Commerce that takes place over waterways and the High Seas . ..  Is assigned to be governed by a special set of grievance settlement and evidentiary rules, just custom tailored to Commerce of that nature . . . at least that was the case in the old days when Admiralty was once restricted to govern legitimate business transactions with the King out on the High Seas. . .. On land, assigning fault and making partial recovery by the responsible party is quite common, but not so out on the High Seas.  So this special marine jurisdiction (and ‘jurisdiction’ meaning here is simply a special set of rules) was developed organically, piece by piece and sometimes Case by Case . . . Also, some of the other special rules applicable to grievances brought into a Court of Admiralty are that there is no jury in Admiralty–NEVER– everything is handled summarily before a Judge in chronologically compressed proceedings.  Also, there are no fixed rules of law or evidence (meaning that it is somewhat like an Administrative Proceeding in the sense that it is a gree-wheeling evidentiary jurisdiction–anything goes).  SOURCE: Invisible Contracts, by George Mercier, Section 383]

(2)  Law Merchant. “Commerce on the high seas that does not involve the King (i.e.  government).”

QUOTE: “The system of law which particularly relates to marine commerce and navigation, to business transacted at sea or relating to navigation, to ships and shipping, to seamen, to the transportation of persons and property by sea, and to marine affairs generally. “ [Black’s Law Dictionary]

47.  How did Admiralty Law become the jurisdiction in the Federal Courts?

ANSWER: Federal Reserve Notes

QUOTE: “Up until the mid-1800s here in the United States, very frequently merchants paid off each other in gold coins and company notes . .. It was infrequent that the King had an involvement with private Maritime Commerce.  And there was an easy-to-see distinction in effect back then between Maritime Jurisdiction contracts that involved private parties . . . and Admiralty Jurisdiction, which applied to Commercial contracts where the King was a party. . .. However, today in the United States, all Commercial contracts that private parties enter into whith each other that are under Maritime Jurisdiction, are now also under Admiralty: Reason: The beneficial use and recirculation of Federal Reserve Notes makes the King an automatic silent Equity third party to the arrangements.” [Source: Invisible Contracts, by George Mercier, Section 390]

QUOTE: “This concept of using Admiralty as a slick tool for Revenue Raising is an important concept to understand, as this procedure to raise revenue through an invisible Admiralty Contract is now surfacing in the United States in the very last place where anyone would think a marine based jurisdictional environment belongs: On your Internal Revenue Service’s 1040 form. . . “ [Source: Invisible Contracts, by George Mercier, Section 396]

48.  How does one become financially entangled in the Admiralty Law system in the USA?

ANSWER: The Birth Certificate combined with the adult who performs Acceptance of Benefits.

QUOTE: “But later through a Federal Judge, I realized that there are special financial benefits that persons documented as being politically enfranchised at birth, experience later on as adults, when they are being shaken down for a smooth Federal looting; and it is this Acceptance of Benefits as adults, in the context of reciprocity being expected back in return, that attaches contract tax liability, and not the existence of a Birth Certificate document itself. . . As a point of beginning, one person cannot bind another.  But most importantly, all the Birth Certificate and correlative documents in the world will not separate a dime in taxation from you until such time as you, individually, and personally, have started to accept juristic benefits.” [Source: Invisible Contracts, by George Mercier, Section 411]

QUOTE: “Remember that when benefits are being accepted in the context of reciprocity being expected back in return, then there lies a good tight contract.” {Source: Invisible Contracts, by George Mercier, Section 412]

49.  What is Statutory Law?

ANSWER: Codified Merchant Law.

QUOTE: Statutory Law.  “That body of law created by acts of the legislature in contrast to constitutional law and law generated by decisions of courts and administrative bodies.”   [Source:  Black’s Law Dictionary]

QUOTE: “The word “colorable” means something that appears to be genuine, but is not.  Maybe it looks like a dollar, and maybe it spends like a dollar, but if it is not redeemable for lawful money (silver or gold) it is “colorable.”  If a Federal Reserve Note is used in a contract, then the contract becomes a “colorable” contract.  And “colorable” contracts must be enforced under a “colorable jurisdiction.”  So by creating Federal Reserve Notes, the government had to create a jurisdiction to cover the kinds of contracts, which use them.  We now have what is called Statutory Jurisdiction, which is not a genuine Admiralty jurisdiction.  It is “colorable” Admiralty Jurisdiction the judges are enforcing because we are using “colorable money.”  Colorable Admiralty is now known as Statutory Jurisdiction.”  [UCC Connection, by Howard Freeman, page 6]

50.  What happened in 1938 that revolutionized American jurisprudence?

QUOTE from a judge to an attorney: “Name any decision of the Supreme Court after 1938 and I’ll honor it, but all the decisions you read were prior to 1938, and I don’t honor those decisions.  Prior to 1938, the Supreme Court was dealing with Public Law; since 1938, the Supreme Court has dealt with Public Policy. . . .” [UCC Connection, by Howard Freeman, page 3]

QUOTE by the attorney: “I found that 1938 was the year of the Erie Railroad v. Tompkins case of the Supreme Court.  It was also the year the courts claim they blended Law with Equity.  I read the Erie Railroad case . .. The district court had decided on the basis of Commercial (Negotiable Instruments) Law: That this man was not under any contract with the Erie Railroad, and therefore he had no standing to sue the company . .. This overturned a standing decision of over one hundred years . .. In the Erie Railroad case, the Supreme Court ruled that all federal cases would be judged under the Negotiable Instruments Law.  There would be no more decisions based on the Common Law at the federal level . ..  All our courts since 1938 were merchant Law courts and not Common Law courts.” [UCC Connection, by Howard Freeman, page 4]

51.  Why did the USA judges abandon Public Law and switch to Public Policy for decisions?

QUOTE from a Judge: “In 1938, all the higher judges, the top attorneys and the U.S. attorneys were called into a secret meeting and this is what we were told:  America is a bankrupt nation–it is owned completely by its creditors.  The creditors own the Congress, they own the Executive, they own the Judiciary and they own all the state governments.  Take a silent judicial notice of this fact, but never reveal it openly.  Your court is operating in an Admiralty Jurisdiction–call it anything you want, but do not call it Admiralty.”  [UCC Connection, by Howard Freeman, page 4]

QUOTE from a Judge: “The reason they cannot call it Admiralty Jurisdiction is that your defense would be quite different in Admiralty Jurisdiction from your defense under the Common Law.  In Admiralty, there is no court, which has jurisdiction unless there is a valid international contract in dispute.  If you know it is Admiralty Jurisdiction, and they have admitted on the record that you are in an Admiralty Court, you can demand that the international maritime contract, to which you are supposedly a party, and which you supposedly have breached, be placed into evidence No court has Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdiction unless there is a valid international maritime contract that has been breached.  So you say, just innocently like a lamb, ‘Well, I never knew that I got involved with an international maritime contract, so I deny that such a contract exists.  If this court is taking jurisdiction in Admiralty, then place the contract in evidence, so that I may challenge the validity of the contract.  What they would have to do is palce the national debt into evidence.  They would have to admit that the international bankers own the whole nation, and that we are their slaves.””  [UCC Connection, by Howard Freeman, page 5]

52.  For what are the international bankers waiting if the nation is bankrupted?

QUOTE by an attorney: “But the bankers said it is not expedient at this time (i.e., 1980s) to admit that they own everything and could foreclose on every nation of the world.  The reason they don’t want to tell everyone that they own everything is that there are still too many privately owned guns.  There are uncooperative armies and other military forces.  So until they can gradually consolidate all armies into a World Army and all courts into a single World Court, it is not expedient to admit the jurisdiction the courts are operating under. . .”  [UCC Connection, by Howard Freeman, page 5]

Disclaimer: These interrogatories are not intended as legal advice, nor do they offer any political suggestions to the reader.  All verification is left to the reader.  The interrogatories by this author are an academic attempt to digest the evidence and instruction found in many sources, and especially in two books entitled: The Myth and The Reality; and A New History for America.  The Informer has displayed tremendous intellectual fortitude with his serious scientific analysis of the evidence throughout written history of the events up to, during, and following the Revolutionary War.  The conclusions are breath-taking upon the first reading, because the evidence demands huge paradigm shifts in knowledge structure and assumption.  Americans have no idea who they really are on a global scale, how their Courts came into being, nor why they keep losing nonexistent “Rights.”  Well, it is time to ask some very good questions and seek truthful answers.  LEARN.


The Greatest Hoax Ever Perpetrated on Mankind

06/20/2012

— Posted Friday, 15 June 2012 | Share this article | Source: GoldSeek.com

By Rob Kirby

A few years ago, when J.P. Morgan grew their derivatives book by 12 Trillion in one quarter [Q3/07] – I did some back of the napkin math – and figured out how many 5 and 10 year bonds the Morgue would have necessarily had to transact on their swaps alone – if they are hedged.  The bonds required to hedge the growth in Morgan’s Swap book were 1.4 billion more in one day than what was mathematically available to the entire domestic bond market for a whole quarter?

Put simply, interest rate swaps create more settlement demand for bonds than the U.S. issues.

This is why U.S. bonds “appear” to be “scarce” – which the bought-and-paid-for mainstream financial press explains to us is “a flight to quality”.  Better stated, it’s a “FORCED FLIGHT [or sleight, perhaps?] TO FRAUD”.

Assertions that netting “explains” this incongruity are a NON-STARTER.  Netting generally occurs at day’s end – the math simply does not even work intra-day.

Further Evidence of Gross Malfeasance in the U.S. Bond Market

Back in 2008, at the height of the financial crisis, folks are reminded how the Fed and U.S. Treasury were unsuccessful in finding a financial institution to either acquire or merge with Morgan Stanley.  Unfortunately, Morgan Stanley’s financial condition has continued to deteriorate:

Analysis: How Morgan Stanley sank to junk pricing

REUTERS | June 1, 2012 at 5:45 pm |

(Reuters) – The bond markets are treating Morgan Stanley like a junk-rated company, and the investment bank’s higher borrowing costs could already be putting it at a disadvantage even before an expected ratings downgrade this month.

Bond rating agency Moody’s Investors Service has said it may cut Morgan Stanley by at least two notches in June, to just two or three steps above junk status. Many investors see such a cut as all but certain.

Many U.S. banks are at risk of a downgrade, but ratings cuts could affect Morgan Stanley most because of the severity of the cut and because of its relatively large trading business…..

The “take-away” from the article above is that Morgan Stanley is not a particularly good credit and the trajectory of their “credit” has been “negative” for some time – particularly since the financial crisis of 2008 when the Fed/U.S. Treasury could not find anyone willing to acquire them.  The Reuter’s scribe also pointed out something highly relevant when she said Morgan Stanley has a “relatively large trading business”.  Let’s explore this a little bit deeper.  According to the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency [OCC] Morgan Stanley’s derivatives book stood at 52.2 TRILLION at Dec. 31/2011.  So to say that Stanley’s trading business is “relatively large” is perhaps a gross understatement [or maybe an intentionally misleading statement?] – since it is currently the third largest “known” derivatives book in the world:

Source:  OCC

Swaps Require/Consume Credit

In the chart above, I’d like to draw your attention to the category SWAPS (OTC) – with are interest rate swaps traded over-the-counter, or, not on an exchange.  What is important for people to realize is that interest rate swaps have two-way counterparty risk – meaning both sides of the trade must have adequate/available credit lines for each other before they can transact.

Now, with Morgan Stanley’s deteriorating credit condition in mind – let’s take a look at how they grew their swap position in a six month period – from Dec. 31/2010 to Jun. 30/2011:

Source:  OCC

To Jun. 30/2011 – An increase of 8 TRILLION in 6 months:

Source: OCC

Ladies and gentlemen, the ENTIRE GLOBAL BANKING COMMUNITY DOES NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT CREDIT LINES, FOR MS, TO ALLOW MORGAN STANLEY TO GROW THEIR SWAP BOOK BY 8 TRILLION IN 6 MONTHS.  Do remember, the Federal Reserve has purview over Bank Holding Companies – so the Fed necessarily knows “who” the other side of these trades really is – and they are implicitly “comfortable” with the counter-party risk.

Ergo, Morgan Stanley necessarily had a NON-BANK counterparty for this 8 Trillion increase in the SWAPS component of their book.  The counter-party for Morgan Stanley’s swaps book is, by-and-large, the same counter-party as J.P. Morgan, Citi, B of A and Goldman.

Now, you have to think about “WHO” or “WHAT” would have the motivation to do this business with Morgan Stanley et al?   In light of the psychedelic, incomprehensibly large amounts of swaps being consummated between Morgan Stanley and this “unidentified” counterparty – it is most likely that the counterparty is none other than the U.S. Treasury’s Exchange Stabilization Fund [ESF] – an entity that is accountable to NO ONE, has absolutely ZERO oversight and operates above ALL LAWS.  It is HIGHLY probable that these trades are being used as a means of undeclared stealth bailout / recapitalization of Morgan Stanley on the public teat in conjunction with arbitrarily controlling the long end of the interest rate curve.

It’s all about national security/preservation of U.S. Dollar Standard.  The following underscores what lengths the governing apparatus will go to – to ensure the perpetuation of actual/perceived U.S. Dollar hegemony:

First reported by Dawn Kopecki back in 2006 when she reported in BusinessWeek Online in a piece titled, Intelligence Czar Can Waive SEC Rules,

President George W. Bush has bestowed on his [then] intelligence czar, John Negroponte, broad authority, in the name of national security, to excuse publicly traded companies from their usual accounting and securities-disclosure obligations. Notice of the development came in a brief entry in the Federal Register, dated May 5, 2006, that was opaque to the untrained eye.”

What this means folks, if institutions like J.P. Morgan, Citi, B of A, Goldman or Morgan Stanley are deemed to be integral to U.S. National Security – can be “legally” excused from reporting their true financial condition – including KEEPING TWO SETS OF BOOKS.  The entry in the Federal Register is described as follows:

The memo Bush signed on May 5, which was published seven days later in the Federal Register, had the unrevealing title “Assignment of Function Relating to Granting of Authority for Issuance of Certain Directives: Memorandum for the Director of National Intelligence.” In the document, Bush addressed Negroponte, saying: “I hereby assign to you the function of the President under section 13(b)(3)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.”

A trip to the statute books showed that the amended version of the 1934 act states that “with respect to matters concerning the national security of the United States,” the President or the head of an Executive Branch agency may exempt companies from certain critical legal obligations. These obligations include keeping accurate “books, records, and accounts” and maintaining “a system of internal accounting controls sufficient” to ensure the propriety of financial transactions and the preparation of financial statements in compliance with “generally accepted accounting principles.”

Conclusion: 

The U.S. Bond market has been “gamed” beyond belief and the only institution in the world with the means and motive to conduct this business is the U.S. Treasury [ESF] in conjunction with/acting through the New York Federal Reserve.  As such, U.S. bond pricing and interest rates are set 100 % arbitrarily and today represent the BIGGEST FINANCIAL HOAX ever perpetrated on mankind.

Rob


The Technocratization of Public Education

06/19/2012

Subverting educational practices

www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=31422

By Prof. James F. Tracy

 Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is directing $1.1 million to fit students in seven US pubic school districts with “galvanic skin response” bracelets. The devices are designed to measure students’ receptivity to teachers’ lessons through biometric technology that reads and records “skin conductance, a form of electrodermal activity that grows higher during states such as boredom or relaxation.” [1, 2].


The funding is part of the Gates Foundation’s $49.5 million Measures of Effective Teachers project that is presently experimenting with teacher evaluation systems. As Melinda Gates put it on the PBS NewsHour, “What the Foundation feels our job is to do is to make sure we create a system where we can have an effective teacher in every single classroom across the United States.” [3]

The effort of extraordinarily wealthy elites to further subvert educational practices through “neuromarketing” techniques is the latest example in a long sequence of educational reforms dating to the early 1900s. Indeed, the Gates Foundation’s fixation on stimulus-response measurement and data collection is a fitting chapter of this history.

State sanctioned education in the United States has become a type of task-oriented training, quite apart from what education once involved–the cultivation of the human will and intellect. Children in most public schools today receive this type of conditioning, while the more affluent often send their offspring to private institutions or home school. What passes for education today is to a significant degree the legacy of late-nineteenth-to-early-twentieth century German psychologist Wilhelm Wundt and the Rockefeller family’s philanthropic project.

A professor at University of Leipzig, Wundt was the originator of what he termed a “new” or “experimental” psychology that stripped psychology of any of its potential philosophical concerns with the soul, will, or self-determination of the individual. In Wundt’s reconfiguration of psychology the mind is merely an apparatus that responds to given stimuli, and through the measurement and recording of the stimuli and responses of the subject the psychologist in the laboratory (subsequently the teacher—and now the students—in the classroom) can determine the effectiveness of one stimulus-response method over another, as well as the functional capacities of the student.

For Wundt and his followers the human being is the sum total of her experiences; devoid of character and essence that might interfere with the ends of the collective unit. This view of the human psyche set the stage for the establishment of eugenics, psychiatry, and the social engineering carried out in public school classrooms.

Wundt exerted tremendous influence through his American doctoral students who studied at Leipzig and returned to transform US education. One of the most influential of these adherents was G. Stanley Hall, who after studying at Leipzig came back to the US in 1883 to teach at Johns Hopkins, begin the American Journal of Psychology, and mentor American intellectual and educational icon John Dewey. Others include James McKeen Cattell, who returned in 1887 and took a faculty position in psychology at Columbia in 1891 where he minted 344 doctoral students. James Earl Russell, another of Wundt’s students, became director of Columbia’s Teachers College in 1897 and remained in the position until the late 1920s [4]

For the next thirty years Cattell, Russell, and Dewey, who ended a ten year stint at University of Chicago and joined his fellow Wundtians in 1904, played substantial roles in transforming public education along the lines that would firmly establish Wundt’s ideas and approaches in American public education. At the same time, Columbia Teachers College became the largest teacher training institution in the world. By the early 1950s roughly one-third of all deans and presidents of accredited teaching schools in the US were graduates of the Columbia program.

While Wundt’s apostles were well positioned to wreak havoc on US education, their mission was greatly aided through funding from the Rockefeller Foundation. John D. Rockefeller saw education as a rewarding object of patronage, pointing to the $45 million he used to establish the University of Chicago in 1890 as the investment that fused the Rockefeller name with liberal philanthropy. He and his handlers, which included his son John D. Rockefeller Jr. and Frederick Taylor Gates (no relation to Bill Gates), concluded that education paid off especially well in terms of burnishing the family’s image.

As John Junior became more involved in the family’s philanthropic efforts he devised new avenues for Rockefeller money, founding the General Education Board–what became known informally as Rockefeller’s “education trust.” The Board channeled especially sizable funds in to reshaping elementary education in the American South through the application of Wundtian experimental psychology approaches.

Gates remarked famously on the General Education Board’s ambitions for the many deprived public schools in the South, where the trust would play a substantial role in educational reform. “We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning, or men of science,” Gates announced.

“The task we set before ourselves is very simple, as well as a very beautiful one, to train these people as we find them to a perfectly ideal life just where they are. So we will organize our children and teach them to do in a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way, in the homes, in the shops and on the farm.” [5]

In 1916 the General Education Board proposed establishing a school with a new curriculum that excluded Latin, Greek, English grammar, and classical literature, while emphasizing different teaching methods for history and literature. In 1920 the Lincoln School was established and became the laboratory school for Columbia’s Teachers College. Until its closure in 1946 Rockefeller spent $5 million on the institution and thousands of burgeoning educators who visited or trained there were reminded how the program was something they should emulate in their own communities. [6]

As American education was being overhauled, and with it the consequent diminished possibilities for an informed public opinion, the view of popular democracy among elites following World War One also grew dim. For example, Walter Lippmann, a founding member of the Council on Foreign Relations and proponent of Anglo-American accord throughout the 1920s and 1930s, maintained in his writings that decisions of substance cannot be left to the man in the mass who lacks proper expertise in domestic or foreign affairs, but must rather be the province of trained experts.

Indeed, the theme of qualified expertise was similarly emphasized by public relations pioneer Edward Bernays, who advised his clients to use expert figures the public held in high regard, such as scientists or medical doctors, to gain the public’s acquiescence on a topic or to promote a trend or product. Overall, the use of experts to manage and mobilize public opinion emerges relatively alongside an educational system that had come to understand and treat the student as a stimulus-response mechanism.

Most professional educators at the college or university level regularly encounter the legacy of Wundtian psychology and the Rockefellers’ educational undertakings. Students often exhibit an inability to think logically and independently either aloud or in writing because formative educational experiences—combined with the lifelong instruction of mass media—recognize and address the individual not as a full human being capable of profound acknowledgment and understanding, but rather as a sensory apparatus upon which stimuli is targeted and a response prompted and measured (i.e. the correct answer or product purchase). Thus the common responses when the student is asked to reflect on and discuss course content are unsurprising: “What do you want?” “How much should we write?” “Will this be on the exam?”

In such an educational and cultural environment where the recognition and cultivation of individual will is discouraged and the deferral to expert opinion is all but obligatory, the result is a combination of skepticism and cynicism. Erich Fromm recognized this phenomenon in the 1940s by pointing out how the perception among individuals that only trained experts could address complex problems—and then only in their own specific specializations—discourages people from using their own minds to seriously think about and address concerns facing themselves or society as a whole.  “The result of this kind of influence is a two-fold one,” Fromm wrote in 1941.

“One is a skepticism and cynicism toward everything which is said or printed, while the other is a childish belief in anything that a person is told with authority. This combination of cynicism and naiveté is very typical of the modern individual. Its essential result is to discourage him from doing his own thinking and deciding.” [7]

This very type of apathetic malaise acts to short circuit political engagement as much as to lessen the exercise of simple common sense in everyday decisions. On cable and broadcast television, for example, where most Americans still rely on heavily to form a view of the world, one will encounter an endless sequence of experts wheeled before the camera to provide an opinion for the viewer.

The technocratic application of neuromarketing to what passes for education today is a fitting outcome in a society that has become almost completely controlled by a scientific elite. As was the case one hundred years ago this technocracy is funded and directed by the super wealthy, and trained to refine and implement what they see as most efficient practices for sculpting and managing the collective mind. This self-selected class and its overseers also recognize how such a brave new world operates at optimal efficiency when the bulk of the population has been effectively zombified through stultifying stimulus-response rituals –a process that after many generations has come close to complete fruition.



Indiana affirms 4th Amendment right to self protection against cops

06/13/2012

Marti Oakley      http://ppjg.me/     Copyright 2012 All Rights Reserved

In December of 2011, the Indiana Supreme Court issued a ruling so clearly unconstitutional, and one which was an outright assault on Constitutional protections and rights, that Indiana’s legislature passed a bill to void that ruling.  Governor Mitch Daniels signed the bill in March of 2012.  The new Indiana bill amends the 2006 Castle Doctrine bill.  This doctrine validates the right of citizens to protect themselves using deadly force to stop illegal entry into their homes or cars, allowing them to self-defend even against unlawful acts of law enforcement.

Indiana‘s original “2006 Castle Doctrine” met with overwhelming, bipartisan support, passing 44-5 in the Senate and 81-10 in the House.  The 2012 amendment to the 2006 Castle Doctrine was a result of the opinions issued last year by the Supreme’s in Indiana. The entire state nearly hurled at once behind this decision that included these statements:

“In sum, we hold that in Indiana the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry into a home is no longer recognized under Indiana law.” Indiana Supreme Court Justice Steven David said,

“We believe however that a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.”

Does it make you wonder if this justice realized that he was acknowledging the unlawful (criminal) activity of law enforcement when he stated that the citizens no longer could defend themselves from these unlawful activities?

Indiana’s state government responded by amending the 2006 Castle Doctrine, reaffirming the right of citizens to self-defense to include specifically when law enforcement is acting unlawfully and is threatening bodily harm, or unlawful trespass under color of law, or no law at all.

From: Second Regular Session 117th General Assembly (2012)

SENATE ENROLLED ACT No. 1

AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning criminal law and procedure.

(b) As used in this section, “public servant” means a person described in IC 35-41-1-17, IC 35-31.5-2-129, or IC 35-31.5-2-185.
(c) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another any other person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force.

____

The balance of the amendment is brief and to the point.  Circumstances as described by the Indiana Supreme Court, written to include exigent circumstances meant that even if the actions taken by law enforcement were beyond any sense of reasonableness, even if those circumstances were totally uncalled for, the citizen had no right to defend himself.  To do so was not in line with the new “modern” interpretation of the Fourth Amendment.

The statement by justice Steven David to the effect that “modern ”Fourth Amendment jurisprudence was incompatible with defending against unlawful entry makes me ask, Incompatible with what public policy?  Where is the new and improved public policy that says law enforcement may unreasonably and without cause, due process and without penalty, terrorize you in your home threatening you and possibly your family?

Militarization of law enforcement

The militarization of local law enforcement has alarm bells going off across the country.  With the exceptions of sheriff’s, who are elected by the public, law enforcement is now under Homeland Security and now considered a Para military force.  Being trained by HSD and military counterparts, numerous local law enforcement agencies have become menaces to their respective communities.  Many agencies are now using military tanks, drones and weapons as they morph from public servants to militarized units capable and willing to do great harm.

While psychological tests have been given to applicants for law enforcement for decades, in the past these tests were used to weed out potential risks that might not be readily apparent in the individual.  These days, the psychological evaluation is to help the police department hire people who are psychologically suitable for the position of militarized police officer.  With the growing violence and maliciousness of law enforcement agencies across the country, one has to wonder just what that criteria is.

The response of the State of Indiana to the unconstitutional and clearly malicious ruling of their own supreme court is being echoed in several other states.  With the rise in violence committed under the color of law by several law enforcement agencies, several states have enacted Castle Doctrines, preserving the right of the individual to defend themselves against arbitrary, unreasonable and violent acts of aggression committed even by law enforcement.

The objections from law enforcement personnel over passage of these kinds of bills in the states, is reflected in a statement from the president of the Indiana Sheriff’s Association:

“I’m not worried about the law-abiding citizens, It’s the ones that really don’t understand the law and they just think, ‘Cop shows up at my door, I can do whatever I want to him.’

Most law enforcement officers are not concerned these days with “law-abiding citizens”.  In fact, they don’t care if you are law abiding or not.

We want our law enforcement agencies back!

Most of the public is still striving to hold their law enforcement officers in high esteem, giving them the respect they desire.  But that respect is earned and cannot be achieved by violating rights, breaking into homes, terrorizing the public and violating basic civil rights without due process or evidence of wrong-doing.   Police brutality, which is becoming all too frequent, is well documented.  Military weapons, gear and uniforms on the streets of America does not inspire respect, but rather, fear and anger.  We are not awed by the fire power or the realization that at any moment this same law enforcement agency could turn on us for any reason or no reason at all.

The “I can do whatever I want to him” mentality is the very one that is expressed by too many in law enforcement these days.

We need to reclaim our local law enforcement agencies as belonging to us, to our communities and end the adversarial stance created by HSD.  We pay these people’s salaries, they come from our communities.  We need to bring them back to being part of our communities instead of being separated from us by edicts from an unelected bureaucracy like HSD.  Until this happens, the Castle Doctrines will continue to roll out across the country as state governments move to preserve and protect our right to self-defense, even against arbitrary and misguided court rulings and rogue law enforcement.

You cannot claim the intent to enforce the law when you are simultaneously breaking the law, or many laws, yourself. Even if you have a badge or a black robe on.


CONFRONTING IRAN, “PROTECTING ISRAEL”:The Real Reason for America’s War on Syria

06/12/2012

www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=31320

 By Prof. Michel Chossudovsky

Secretary of  State Hillary Clinton is calling for an R2P humanitarian military intervention in Syria to curb the atrocities allegedly ordered by the government of president Bashar Al Assad. In a twisted logic, Clinton recognizes that while “opposition forces” are integrated by Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists, the government rather than the terrorists is held responsible, without a shred of evidence, for the ongoing massacre of civilians.

Amply documented, these sectarian killings and atrocities are being committed by foreign mercenaries and militia which are armed and supported by the Western military alliance.

The killings are carried out quite deliberately as part of a diabolical covert operation. The enemy is then blamed for the resulting atrocities. The objective is to justify a military agenda on humanitarian grounds.

In US military jargon, it’s called a “massive casualty producing event”, the historical origins of  which go back to “Operation Northwoods“, an infamous 1962 Pentagon Plan, consisting in  killing civilians in the Miami Cuban community, with a view to justifying a war on Cuba. (See Michel Chossudovsky, SYRIA: Killing Innocent Civilians as part of a US Covert Op. Mobilizing Public Support for a R2P War against Syria, Global Research, May 30, 2012)

“Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba’s then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.”  (U.S. Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba – ABC News emphasis added. This Secret Pentagon document was declassified and can be readily consulted, See Operation Northwoods, See also National Security Archive, 30 April 2001)

In the logic of Operation Northwoods, the killings in Syria are carried out to “create a helpful wave of indignation”, to drum up public opinion in favor of an R2P  US-NATO operation against Syria. “The international community cannot sit idly by, and we won’t”, said US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
What lies behind this outburst of humanitarian concern by “the international community”. Is America coming to the rescue of the Syrian people? What is the real reason for America’s war on Syria?

This question is addressed in a lead article by James P. Rubin, a Bloomberg executive editor and former State department official under the Clinton administration. The article appears in this month’s Foreign Policy Magazine under the clear-cut title: “The Real Reason to Intervene in Syria

In an unusual twist, “the answer to the question”, namely “the real reason” is provided in the article’s subtitle: “Cutting Iran’s link to the Mediterranean Sea is a strategic prize worth the risk.”.

The subtitle should dispel –in the eyes of the reader– the illusion that US foreign policy has an underlying “humanitarian  mandate”.  Pentagon and US State department documents as well as independent reports confirm that military action against Syria has been contemplated by Washington and Tel Aviv for more than 20 years.

Targeting Iran, “Protecting Israel” 

According to James P. Rubin, the war plans directed against Syria are intimately related to those pertaining to Iran. They are part of the same US-Israeli military agenda which consists in weakening Iran with a view to “protecting Israel”. The latter objective is to be carried out through a pre-emptive attack against Iran:  “We’re not done with the possibility of an Israeli strike on Iran” says James P. Rubin.

According to Clifford D. May, president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (“a policy institute focusing on terrorism and Islamism”),  the humaniitarian concern is not the primary objective but rather a means to and end: “If the Arab League is unmoved by the massacres of Syrian women and children (their angry eyes fixed as ever on Israel), and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation doesn’t give a fig about Muslims slaughtering Muslims, why should we Americans expend an ounce of energy? …  Because Syria, under the Assad dictatorship, is Iran’s most important ally and asset. And Iran is the single most important strategic threat facing the U.S. — hands down.” (See National Review, May 30, 2012)

The military roadmap to Tehran goes through Damascus. The unspoken objective of the US-NATO-Israeli sponsored insurgency in Syria is to destabilize Syria as a Nation State and undermine Iran’s influence in the region (including its support of the Palestinian Liberation movement and Hezbollah). The underlying objective is also to eliminate all forms of resistance to the Zionist State:

“That is where Syria comes in, says James P, Rubin. It is the strategic relationship between the Islamic Republic and the Assad regime that makes it possible for Iran to undermine Israel’s security. Over the three decades of hostility between Iran and Israel, a direct military confrontation has never occurred — but through Hezbollah, which is sustained and trained by Iran via Syria, the Islamic Republic has proven able to threaten Israeli security interests.

The collapse of the Assad regime would sunder this dangerous alliance. Defense Minister Ehud Barak, arguably the most important Israeli decision-maker on this question, recently told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour that the Assad regime’s fall “will be a major blow to the radical axis, major blow to Iran…. It’s the only kind of outpost of the Iranian influence in the Arab world … and it will weaken dramatically both Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza.” (The Real Reason to Intervene in Syria – By James P. Rubin | Foreign Policy, June 2, 2012, emphasis added)

US-Israeli War Plans directed against Syria

Rubin candidly outlines the contours of US military intervention in Syria, which is to be implemented in close liaison with Israel. A diplomatic solution will not work, nor will economic sanctions: “only the threat or use of force will change the Syrian dictator’s stance” says Rubin:

“U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration has been understandably wary of engaging in an air operation in Syria similar to the campaign in Libya, for three main reasons. Unlike the Libyan opposition forces, the Syrian rebels are not unified and do not hold territory. The Arab League has not called for outside military intervention as it did in Libya. And the Russians, the longtime patron of the Assad regime, are staunchly opposed.” (Ibid)

Washington’s first step, according to James P. Rubin, should be to work with “its allies”, the Arab sheikdoms –Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey– “to organize, train, and arm Syrian rebel forces.”

This “first step” has already been launched. It was implemented at the very outset of the insurgency in March 2012. The US and its allies have been actively supporting the Free Syrian Army (FSA) terrorists for over a year. The organization and training consisted in the deployment of Salafist and Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists, alongside the incursion of French, British, Qatari and Turkish special forces inside Syria. US-NATO sponsored mercenaries are recruted and trained in Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Sidetracking the UN

Rubin’s proposed “second step” is “to secure international support for a coalition air operation.” outside the mandate of the United Nations. “Russia will never support such a mission, so there is no point operating through the U.N. Security Council” says Rubin. The air operation contemplated by Rubin is an all out war scenario, similar to the NATO air raids conducted in Libya.

Rubin is not expressing a personal opinion on the role of theUN. The option of “sidetracking” the UN Security Council has already been endorsed by Washington. The violaiton of international law does not seem to be an issue. US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice confirmed in late May, in no uncertain terms, that “the worst and most probable scenario” in Syria might be the option of “acting outside of the UN Security Council’s authority”.

“In the absence of either of those two scenarios, there seems to me to be only one other alternative, and that is indeed the worst case, which seems unfortunately at the present to be the most probable. And that is that the violence escalates, the conflict spreads and intensifies, it reaches a higher degree of severity… The Council’s unity is exploded, the Annan plan is dead and members of this Council and members of the international community are left with the option only of having to consider whether they’re prepared to take actions outside of the Annan plan and the authority of this Council.” Actions outside UN Security Council Likely in Syria – Rice | World | RIA Novosti, May 31, 2012

Rubin also points to “the reluctance of some European states” to participate in an air operation against Syria: “this [military] operation will have to be a unique combination of Western and Middle East countries. Given Syria’s extreme isolation within the Arab League, it should be possible to gain strong support from most Arab countries, led by Saudi Arabia and Turkey. U.S. leadership is indispensable, since most of the key countries will follow only if Washington leads.”

The article calls for continued arming of the Syrian Free Army (FSA) as well carrying out air raids directed against Syria. No ground operations are to be envisaged. The air campaign would be used –as in the case of Libya– to support the FSA foot soldiers integrated by mercenaries and Al Qaeda affiliated brigades:

“Whether an air operation should just create a no-fly zone that grounds the regimes’ aircraft and helicopters or actually conduct air to ground attacks on Syrian tanks and artillery should be the subject of immediate military planning. …

The larger point is that as long as Washington stays firm that no U.S. ground troops will be deployed, à la Kosovo and Libya, the cost to the United States will be limited. Victory may not come quickly or easily, but it will come. And the payoff will be substantial. Iran would be strategically isolated, unable to exert its influence in the Middle East. The resulting regime in Syria will likely regard the United States as more friend than enemy. Washington would gain substantial recognition as fighting for the people in the Arab world, not the corrupt regimes.” (Rubin, op cit)

While the participation of Israel in military operations is not mentioned, the thrust of Rubin’s article points to active cooperation between Washington and Tel Aviv in military and intelligence affairs, including the conduct of covert operations in support of the opposition rebels. This coordination would also be carried out in the context of the bilateral military-intelligence cooperation agreement between Israel and Turkey.

“Coming to the rescue of the Syrian people” under a fake “humanitarian” R2P mandate is intended to destabilize Syria, weaken Iran and enable Israel to exert greater political control and influence over neighboring Arab states including Lebanon and Syria.

A war on Syria is also a war on Palestine. It would weaken  the resistance movement in the occupied territories. It would reinforce the Netanyahu government’s ambitions to create a “Greater Israel”, initially, through the outright annexation of the Palestinian territories:

“With the Islamic Republic deprived of its gateway to the Arab world, the Israelis’ rationale for a bolt from the blue attack on its nuclear facilities would diminish. A new Syrian regime might eventually even resume the frozen peace talks regarding the Golan Heights. In Lebanon, Hezbollah would be cut off from its Iranian sponsor, since Syria would no longer be a transit point for Iranian training, assistance, and missiles. All these strategic benefits combined with the moral purpose of saving tens of thousands of civilians from murder at the hands of the Assad regime … make intervention in Syria a calculated risk, but still a risk worth taking.” (Rubin, op cit)

War Crimes in the name of human rights: What we really need is “Regime Change” in the United States of America…. and Israel.